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

Gensyn AI: Don't Let AI Repeat the Mistakes of the Internet

In recent months, the rapid growth of the AI industry has attracted significant talent from the crypto sector. A persistent question among researchers intersecting both fields is whether blockchain can become a foundational part of AI infrastructure. While many previous AI and Crypto projects focused on application layers (like AI Agents, on-chain reasoning, data markets, and compute rentals), few achieved viable commercial models. Gensyn differentiates itself by targeting the most critical and expensive layer of AI: model training. Gensyn aims to organize globally distributed GPU resources into an open AI training network. Developers can submit training tasks, nodes provide computational power, and the network verifies results while distributing incentives. The core issue addressed is not decentralization for its own sake, but the increasing centralization of compute power among tech giants. In the era of large models, access to GPUs (like the H100) has become a decisive bottleneck, dictating the pace of AI development. Major AI companies are heavily dependent on large cloud providers for compute resources. Gensyn's approach is significant for several reasons: 1) It operates at the core infrastructure layer (model training), the most resource-intensive and technically demanding part of the AI value chain. 2) It proposes a more open, collaborative model for compute, potentially increasing resource utilization by dynamically pooling idle GPUs, similar to early cloud computing logic. 3) Its technical moat lies in solving complex challenges like verifying training results, ensuring node honesty, and maintaining reliability in a distributed environment—making it more of a deep-tech infrastructure company. 4) It targets a validated, high-growth market with genuine demand, rather than pursuing blockchain integration without purpose. Ultimately, the boundaries between Crypto and AI are blurring. AI requires global resource coordination, incentive mechanisms, and collaborative systems—areas where crypto-native solutions excel. Gensyn represents a step toward making advanced training capabilities more accessible and collaborative, moving beyond a niche controlled by a few giants. If successful, it could evolve into a fundamental piece of AI infrastructure, where the most enduring value in the AI era is often created.

marsbit12 год тому

Gensyn AI: Don't Let AI Repeat the Mistakes of the Internet

marsbit12 год тому

Why is China's AI Developing So Fast? The Answer Lies Inside the Labs

A US researcher's visit to China's top AI labs reveals distinct cultural and organizational factors driving China's rapid AI development. While talent, data, and compute are similar to the West, Chinese labs excel through a pragmatic, execution-focused culture: less emphasis on individual stardom and conceptual debate, and more on teamwork, engineering optimization, and mastering the full tech stack. A key advantage is the integration of young students and researchers who approach model-building with fresh perspectives and low ego, prioritizing collective progress over personal credit. This contrasts with the US culture of self-promotion and "star scientist" narratives. Chinese labs also exhibit a strong "build, don't buy" mentality, preferring to develop core capabilities—like data pipelines and environments—in-house rather than relying on external services. The ecosystem feels more collaborative than tribal, with mutual respect among labs. While government support exists, its scale is unclear, and technical decisions appear driven by labs, not state mandates. Chinese companies across sectors, from platforms to consumer tech, are building their own foundational models to control their tech destiny, reflecting a broader cultural drive for technological sovereignty. Demand for AI is emerging, with spending patterns potentially mirroring cloud infrastructure more than traditional SaaS. Despite challenges like a less mature data industry and GPU shortages, Chinese labs are propelled by vast talent, rapid iteration, and deep integration with the open-source community. The competition is evolving beyond a pure model race into a contest of organizational execution, developer ecosystems, and industrial pragmatism.

marsbit14 год тому

Why is China's AI Developing So Fast? The Answer Lies Inside the Labs

marsbit14 год тому

3 Years, 5 Times: The Rebirth of a Century-Old Glass Factory

Corning, a 175-year-old glass company, is experiencing a dramatic revival as a key player in AI infrastructure, driven by surging demand for high-performance optical fiber in data centers. AI data centers require vastly more fiber than traditional ones—5 to 10 times as much per rack—to handle high-speed data transmission between GPUs. This structural demand shift, coupled with supply constraints from the lengthy expansion cycle for fiber preforms, has created a significant supply-demand gap. Nvidia has invested in Corning, along with Lumentum and Coherent, in a $4.5 billion total commitment to secure the optical supply chain for AI. Corning's competitive edge lies in its expertise in producing ultra-low-loss, high-density, and bend-resistant specialty fiber, which is critical for 800G+ and future 1.6T data rates. Its deep involvement in co-packaged optics (CPO) with partners like Nvidia further solidifies its position. While not the largest fiber manufacturer globally, Corning's revenue from enterprise/data center clients now exceeds 40% of its optical communications sales, and it has secured multi-year supply agreements with major hyperscalers including Meta and Nvidia. Financially, Corning's optical communications revenue has surged, doubling from $1.3 billion in 2023 to over $3 billion in 2025. Its stock price has risen nearly 6-fold since late 2023. Key future catalysts include the rollout of Nvidia's CPO products and the scale of undisclosed customer agreements. However, risks include high current valuations and potential disruption from next-generation technologies like hollow-core fiber. The company's long-term bet on light over electricity, maintained even through the telecom bubble crash, is now being validated by the AI boom.

marsbit14 год тому

3 Years, 5 Times: The Rebirth of a Century-Old Glass Factory

marsbit14 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片