Editor: Wu Blockchain about Blockchain
In this podcast, Hu Yilin shares his decision to resign from Tsinghua University and move to Singapore. Behind this decision are both the limitations of the academic system and his interest in free academics and the blockchain ecosystem. Hu Yilin is a PhD in Philosophy from Peking University and an associate professor in the Department of History of Science at Tsinghua University. He is one of the few university teachers in the Chinese world who actively participates in blockchain activities.
Hu Yilin deeply explored the impact of the academic mechanism of either promotion or departure on young scholars and analyzed the dilemma of institutional reform in universities. At the same time, he expressed his deep insights into fields such as Bitcoin, NFT, and decentralized science, and explained the reasons for choosing Singapore for long-term development, especially its friendliness to the cryptocurrency ecosystem and family environment. Finally, he looked forward to the future of the integration of technology and art, and raised the challenge of how to redefine learning and education in the AI era.
The audio-to-text conversion uses GPT, so there may be errors. Listen to the full podcast:
Reasons for leaving Tsinghua
Colin: Hello, listeners. As we all know, our old friend Mr. Hu is an associate professor in the Department of History of Science at Tsinghua University. But now he has resigned and moved to Singapore. Mr. Hu, why don't you tell us about this process yourself?
Hu Yilin: I am ALL IN Web3. First of all, let me correct it. It is not considered a resignation, but a natural resignation. Young scholars nowadays are actually quite competitive. They all have to go through the promotion or leave mechanism. Promotion or leave means that you must pass the long-term employment review within 6 years. If you fail, you have to leave. I decided not to participate in the review.
Tsinghua University took the lead in creating the "promotion or leave" mechanism. Tsinghua University and Peking University were the first to implement this system. It is a copy of the American academic system, but to be honest, the American academic world is not that good. In addition, when China borrowed from it, it also changed a little. However, to be honest, Tsinghua University is still much better than many domestic universities. My feeling at Tsinghua University is that at least Tsinghua University respects teachers relatively.
Although I left Tsinghua, I actually didn't have any major complaints. The main reason is that Tsinghua still respects teachers. There are two aspects of respect here. One is to treat teachers as "one's own people". When many universities implement a promotion-or-leave mechanism, they treat teachers as temporary workers and exploit the research output of young scholars in their golden period before the age of 35. Tsinghua is relatively better. It pays more attention to the quality of papers rather than the quantity. Tsinghua adopts a representative work mechanism. Papers only need to reach the international or domestic leading level, and the number is not required to be particularly large. So I think this is still okay. But even so, I finally chose to leave. This year happened to be the time when my contract expired, so I left naturally.
Actually, I followed Professor Wu Guosheng from Peking University to Tsinghua University. I am one of the founding members of the Department of History of Science at Tsinghua University. There were a group of founding members in our Department of History of Science at that time, but now they are all gone. It is very strange that no young professor in the Department of History of Science has been hired for a long term. Everyone's situation is different, and each has their own reasons, but in the end, none of them stayed.
Some went abroad, some went to other schools. Some did not pass the review and were not converted to regular employees. Some chose to change careers, such as becoming monks. In short, there are all kinds of situations, and everyone goes their own way.
The Dilemma of Academic System Reform
Colin: It seems that colleges and universities are really different now than they were before. In the past, I felt that entering a college was like entering the system, and I just had to muddle through life slowly. Now, it seems that the pressure has increased.
Hu Yilin: Yes, this is the core of the academic problem. We can also talk about DeSci, which is about the decentralization of academic and scientific research. I feel deeply about this. Whether it is the traditional academic model or the current academic model, whether in China or the West, there are big problems, and it can even be said that it is no longer suitable for the current development.
In the past, Tsinghua University and Peking University took the lead in reform, which was necessary in a sense. Under the traditional model, the academic world often became a "position-occupancy game". For example, a professor occupies a position, and no one cares whether the research is good or not, especially in the field of liberal arts. Someone occupies a position, and the position belongs to him regardless of whether the research is outstanding. This model is indeed not conducive to academic mobility, and it is difficult to create a good academic atmosphere. So later reforms led to the "either promotion or leave" mechanism, turning the iron rice bowl into a temporary job.
The so-called promotion or leave is generally a six-year mechanism. The first six years after you graduate with a doctorate are the golden period of your academic career, but under the promotion or leave mechanism, you are a temporary worker during this period. In order to pass the review, you need to work hard to publish papers and research projects. All the results belong to the school, but you may still not be awarded a permanent position and have to leave.
What happens next? You may go to a second-rate or third-rate university, or even find no job. At this point, you have passed the golden period of academic output, your research output has declined, and there are fewer job opportunities. This model is not friendly to scholars.
However, in a relatively balanced environment, this model may be OK, such as Tsinghua. Tsinghua's promotion-or-leave mechanism gives some pressure, but it is not so harsh. Research is relatively free, teaching is also valued, and the degree of competition is low. However, this kind of environment is rare. Tsinghua's fatal problem is insufficient funding and low salary. It's like in the workplace, places with high salaries, such as large companies, will be full of competition, while places with less money like Tsinghua may have less pressure, but there are also contradictions.
From a larger perspective, this “volume” is unsolvable. I once saw an article comparing university teaching positions to a “Ponzi scheme.” Especially in the humanities, the best way out for PhDs is to teach at universities, but there are limited teaching positions. A professor may train 20 students, and these students will train more students, creating an infinite demand. However, the actual number of teaching positions will not increase by that much.
In the past, the expansion of universities in China and the West alleviated this problem to a certain extent. For example, population growth and universal education brought more demand for universities. But when the expansion ends, such as now that the population shrinks and the demand for education is saturated, the problem is exposed. In the future, universities will enter a period of shrinkage, and this mechanism will become increasingly unsustainable.
Colin: I didn’t expect that the academic world is also a Ponzi scheme, very similar to the crypto.
Hu Yilin: Yes. Many disciplines have similar problems. The adaptability of my discipline, the history of science, is slightly better because we undertake the task of general education. But some less popular specialized disciplines have serious problems. A professor often trains students only to take over. If only one student is recruited per generation, the course cannot be opened. To open a course, more students are needed, but what will these students do in the future? This is why the model is unsustainable and must be reformed.
Both China and the West have this problem, but China's problem is more serious. It took China a dozen to twenty years to complete the pace of expansion that took the West more than a hundred years. This rapid expansion makes it more difficult for Chinese academia to adapt to the rapidly shrinking environment. The West also has similar problems, but the pace is slightly slower, so there is relatively more time to adjust.
Reasons for choosing Singapore after leaving your job
Colin: Professor Hu, when did you start to consider leaving college? Why did you choose Singapore? Does this have anything to do with Web3 or blockchain?
Hu Yilin: I actually considered leaving college from the beginning. Because I never considered college as a “iron rice bowl”, I always wondered what to do if I didn’t get a long-term appointment. Of course, if I didn’t get a long-term appointment from Tsinghua, I could still go to some first-rate universities in China. They can’t be called second-rate universities. After all, Tsinghua is super first-rate, and it shouldn’t be a problem to find a teaching position at a general first-rate university. But the question is whether I should continue to work in college, or simply quit and become a freelance scholar. This is what I have been thinking about.
I teach not for a "rice bowl". As Bitcoin players, we do not believe in the so-called "iron rice bowl". This thing may seem stable, but it is actually unreliable. Even a tenured position is not a real iron rice bowl. If the whole system collapses and the Ponzi scheme cannot be maintained, the so-called iron rice bowl will be meaningless. In addition, even if there is an iron rice bowl, the rice may become less and less.
Take Tsinghua University as an example. Its salary and benefits are very low, which is well-known. In the early days of institutional reform, Tsinghua University attracted people with high salaries, but did not offer tenured positions. The high income and good treatment it provided were still very competitive at the time. However, now other universities in the country have also begun to implement the quasi-employment mechanism, but their treatment has increased, while Tsinghua's treatment has basically not changed significantly. In this way, although the "rice bowl" of Tsinghua University is still there, the rice is not enough to eat. In this case, the so-called "iron rice bowl" has become an "iron constraint", which prevents you from jumping into a freer environment to develop.
Despite this, my days at Tsinghua were good. Because I didn't rely on my salary to support myself, but enjoyed the sense of accomplishment that teaching brought me. This sense of accomplishment cannot be bought with money. The courses and theories you carefully prepare can influence those excellent students, and this feeling is irreplaceable. But over time, this sense of accomplishment is also changing. For example, when you train doctoral students, you feel responsible for their future, but you know that they will eventually enter the Ponzi scheme of academia. This contradiction greatly reduces my sense of accomplishment in teaching.
On the other hand, I have communicated with many people in the crypto over the years and felt a sense of accomplishment. I found that my thoughts and opinions can influence more people and receive positive feedback. This made me realize that the dissemination of ideas is not necessarily limited to colleges and universities. After leaving colleges and universities, there may be a broader and more effective space for information dissemination. This is also one of the reasons why I finally chose to leave.
Colin: So why did you choose Singapore? Was this a deliberate decision?
Hu Yilin: I didn’t think about it for a long time. I decided to go there the first time I came to Singapore. I was actually thinking about going to Hong Kong at first.
Hong Kong is the first option because it is more convenient. As a homebody, I am not very willing to face a completely unfamiliar environment, such as dealing with foreigners. I am not very good at language and socializing. I hope to be in a place where there are many Chinese people and at the same time there is a certain open environment. Hong Kong seems to be very suitable, but later I found several problems. First of all, many people say that "it is better not to live in Hong Kong", which means that going to Hong Kong is not a real immigration. Secondly, the living environment in Hong Kong makes me feel depressed, especially for children. If a child lives in a small space for a long time, his mental health may be affected. In comparison, the living environment in Singapore is much more spacious and comfortable.
In addition, the people in Singapore are very friendly. Although my short experience in Hong Kong was not bad, I generally felt that Hong Kong people were a bit "dead", for example, some waiters gave me the feeling that I owed them money. The people in Singapore are more warm and friendly. In addition, the immigration procedures in Singapore are relatively simple, for example, applying for EP (Employment Pass) is not too difficult. Although it is difficult to obtain permanent residence, it is not difficult as a place to live.
In summary, there are three reasons why I chose Singapore:
First, Chinese-friendly;
Second, it is relatively friendly to the cryptocurrency ecosystem;
Third, it is friendly to the rich. Although a stable social order may not be good for social vitality, it is very friendly to those who do not need to work hard and are already in the wealthy class.
Combining the History of Science and Technology with Blockchain Research
Colin: Professor Hu, how are you settling into your life now? What are your plans for the future? Will you continue to work on academic-related matters, or will you prefer Web3 and blockchain-related work?
Hu Yilin: Both. First of all, my biggest task is to settle my children, which is the first priority. Secondly, under this premise, I pursue freedom. I have now integrated academia and Web3. This integration has been consistent from the beginning. I have mentioned before that the Bitcoin circle is actually a direct product of my doctoral thesis. When writing my doctoral thesis, I thought about the nature of currency and why Bitcoin is correct and valuable. After thinking it through, I entered this field. It can be said that from the beginning to now, this is a process of unity of knowledge and action.
My academic field is the history of science and technology, especially the history of technology and the philosophy of technology. The history of technology is very interesting because it shows the real driving force of change in human history. Compared with political history and dynasty changes, the changes brought about by the history of technology are more profound and drastic. Political history is often a cycle of changing soup but not medicine, but the history of technology is a continuous progress. For example, the Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution and the Industrial Revolution all benefited from the promotion of science and technology. From perspective, printing, to navigation technology, to modern science and industrial system, these technological innovations have promoted human history in a very magnificent way.
The history of technology allows us to see this magnificent transformation and even allows us to participate in it in person. This is what makes it fascinating. Science fiction, on the other hand, looks at future technological changes from another perspective, depicting a new lifestyle and social outlook. The history of technology explores the past, and science fiction imagines the future, but now the great changes are really happening in the time and space we are in now. We feel that we are constantly encountering historical moments and constantly witnessing science fiction come true. This feeling is very shocking.
This combination gives me a sense of mission, like participating in a new chapter in the poem of human destiny. This experience is exciting and a manifestation of the unity of knowledge and action. The significance of studying history is not only a record of the past, but also an inspiration for current actions and judgments. History will not tell you directly what to do, but it will inspire you through the rendering of emotions and experiences.
For example, if you read a novel or TV series, you will feel more involved when you watch a new episode after reading the previous part, because you will put the current plot into a grand narrative and understand it more deeply. For me, putting current events in the context of a large historical background will increase my sense of involvement.
Therefore, what we do is not just to make money to support our families, nor for our own small piece of land, but to participate in a greater wave of humanity. Although the meaning of this wave is difficult to define exactly, the experience it brings is very strong.
Bitcoin investment, holding strategy and cold wallet
Colin: Mr. Hu, let's talk about some practical things in the crypto. What everyone is more concerned about is your holding ratio. Is the majority of it still Bitcoin? Have you been increasing your holdings since the early days, or is it mainly based on the Bitcoin you bought in the early days?
Hu Yilin: Well, this question is not particularly complicated. I started recording when I entered the circle. I remember that I said at that time that I would "enter the crypto with a few thousand yuan of funds". All these contents can be found in my blog. Although I entered the circle very early, in 2013, I don't have much money now. Many people would find it strange that I entered the circle in 2013 and have always been a HODLER and have always advocated holding coins, but why didn't I make a lot of money? The reason is very simple. I was a poor student at the time, with no income and very little money to invest.
I first bought Bitcoins from my living expenses, but my dad criticized me for saying that living expenses are for living, not for investment. I got a scholarship and used it to buy some. So the initial capital was only a few thousand yuan. This was my original capital, and I kept adding to it. I am still adding to it this year because after I moved abroad, I sold a house in China and used the money to continue buying Bitcoins.
Colin: Now that the price is so high, are you still adding to your holdings?
Hu Yilin: Yes, I plan to continue to increase my position. In the long run, I believe Bitcoin will always outperform fiat currency.
Colin: I heard Shenyu mention the "Four Wallet Theory" before, which is about 60% of mainstream assets, such as Bitcoin, are placed in cold wallets; 20% are used for some flexible operations; 10% are used for high-risk investments; and 5%~10% are kept as legal currency. Is your strategy similar to this theory?
Hu Yilin: I don’t quite agree with his theory, especially the part about fiat currency. He mentioned that the interest on fiat currency can cover the cost of living, but this ratio is almost impossible for ordinary people to achieve. Only big guys like Shenyu can calculate this scale. Ordinary people can’t do it at all.
My strategy is based on Bitcoin. I use 4% of all my assets as living expenses, and these assets do not need to be converted into fiat currency to earn interest. My living expenses are directly covered by the annual growth rate of Bitcoin, because the growth rate of Bitcoin is much higher than the risk-free interest rate of traditional fiat currency.
Colin: Do you pledge your Bitcoin to raise interest rates? Or do you keep it in a cold wallet?
Hu Yilin: If the pledge rate is raised, I will only take out a small amount of funds to play, such as half a coin or a coin. For me, this is just an attempt, and I will not invest most of my assets in it. I have tried many before, such as Merlin and Blue Box, and I lost a lot in the end. Of course, these attempts are more for the experience of cutting-edge gameplay.
Colin: Sometimes you can’t help but buy some when you see a project is well done, right?
Hu Yilin: That’s true, especially during the NFT market, I couldn’t help but buy some, and ended up losing a lot. Although the NFT market has become hot again recently, my assets have only returned from the “ankle” to the “knee”.
Colin: What advice do you have for cold wallets? What wallet do you use?
Hu Yilin: My main assets are in the BiTai wallet. The BiTai wallet was created quite early, and the team was disbanded a long time ago, but the wallet does not need to be upgraded and is still very useful. I think it is one of the best solutions for cold wallets. Its model is to use an old mobile phone as a cold wallet. Almost everyone of us has an old mobile phone that is not used, right?
You only need to install the Bitcoin wallet on your old phone, disconnect from the Internet, and delete the Bluetooth and Wi-Fi functions, so that the phone becomes a cold wallet. Then install a hot wallet on another new phone and operate it through the QR code signature. This method is simple, safe, and low-cost, and does not require the purchase of additional hardware wallets.
Colin: Bitai Wallet and Bitpie are the same company, right?
Hu Yilin: Yes, but then Bitpie launched a hardware wallet, and the Bitcoin wallet model was abandoned because it was not profitable. I can understand this, after all, it is open source software and has no profit point. But I like this model very much.
In addition, I recommend that you memorize seed phrase. I memorized several sets of seed phrase myself, so that even if there is a problem with the cold wallet, the assets can be safely restored.
Comparison between Bitcoin Ecosystem and ETH Ecosystem
Colin: Mr. Hu, you have done some NFT projects in the Bitcoin ecosystem before, but recently it seems that the focus of the entire industry has shifted from the Bitcoin ecosystem to meme coins. Do you think there are still opportunities for the Bitcoin ecosystem in the future? Or will you also pay attention to other ecosystems, such as hot spots on Solana or Base?
Hu Yilin: I don’t reject meme coins, these projects are worth playing with. Speaking of the Bitcoin ecosystem, I have always been optimistic about it. But the current problem with the Bitcoin ecosystem is that it has not found a particularly good development model, nor has it established a strong enough sense of identity.
From the perspective of the entire industry, the Bitcoin ecosystem has its own uniqueness, and one of the reasons why I was optimistic about it was that it could become an option to counter the ETH ecosystem. The problem with the ETH ecosystem is that its positioning is vague: it wants to stick to decentralization and uphold the punk spirit, but in many ways it has moved towards centralization. It is not as good as Bitcoin in terms of decentralization, and it is not as good as Solana in terms of efficiency and pace.
Solana's positioning is very clear, it is centralized, efficient, and fast-paced. This positioning attracts those who focus on user experience. If you want a more efficient chain, choose Solana. In comparison, ETH is a bit neither up nor down, and it doesn't please both sides.
As a company chain, Base is also more inclined to develop in a centralized direction, with the goal of improving efficiency. Although it cannot be said to be completely centralized, it is more centralized than ETH and has taken a clear path of efficiency first.
The reason why I am optimistic about the Bitcoin ecosystem is that it represents the ideal of decentralization. As a believer in decentralization, I think this direction is still correct. But the current dilemma of the Bitcoin ecosystem is that it is not pleasing to both sides. On the one hand, Bitcoin HODLERs do not recognize many new projects in the ecosystem, believing that they are essentially "speculating on coins" and are variants of Altcoin. On the other hand, for users who like to speculate on coins, the Bitcoin ecosystem is inefficient, slow, and has low traffic, and is far less attractive than the Solana ecosystem.
As Bitcoin HODLers, we are very conservative. It is not easy to take out 1% or 2% of our assets to participate in these projects, but it is impossible for us to go all in or bet heavily. Because of this conservatism, the Bitcoin ecosystem is difficult to attract traditional Bitcoin players, and it is also unable to compete for speculative users who like short-term gains.
Despite this, I think the Bitcoin ecosystem still has opportunities. For example, in the future, we can stop pursuing the rhythm of "speculating on coins" and do some projects with long-term value. NFT on Bitcoin may be a direction. Because Bitcoin has stronger "eternity" and "solidity", it may be more convincing in the field of NFT.
The future breakthrough of Bitcoin ecology may rely on the next generation of NFT products. These products need to break away from the logic of pure speculation and have more practical gameplay or value. If these new models can adapt to the Bitcoin ecology, I believe it still has a chance to rise again.
The possibilities and problems of decentralized science
Colin: Professor Hu, what are your next exploration plans? Will you continue to focus on art-related fields, or will you try something new in the field of decentralized science (DeSci) as we talked about before?
Hu Yilin: Regarding decentralized science, I must admit that I am self-aware. I really want to do this, but I don’t have enough initiative and energy to really promote it. This field has a long way to go and is very difficult. So, if someone is willing to do it, I will fully support it, such as being a consultant, advisor, or even a platform. I generally don’t easily support a project, but if the project is truly moving towards decentralized scientific research and meets my ideas and standards, I am willing to support it.
Colin: Indeed, some projects aim to issue coins from the very beginning, and they look more like money-making scams.
Hu Yilin: Yes, some projects are indeed too eager for quick success. For example, they are in a hurry to issue coins from the beginning, which actually overdraws the potential of the project. In fact, the core issue of decentralized scientific research is not funding, but influence and consensus. How to establish a consensus in the academic community is the key.
Funding alone cannot promote the development of scientific research. If throwing money can solve the problem, China would have had a lot of Nobel Prize winners. China is not short of funds. The problem is that scientific research requires time, atmosphere and cultural accumulation. This kind of accumulation cannot be achieved by throwing money. For example, Peking University, although it does not have much funding, has a very deep foundation in both science and liberal arts. This foundation cannot be replicated immediately by throwing money, and Tsinghua or other schools cannot reach this level in the short term.
The principle of decentralized science and decentralized finance is the same. Many projects issue tokens at the beginning, to put it bluntly, just to raise funds, but decentralized science is not short of money. The real contradiction in the development of scientific research is that it takes time to build consensus and cultural atmosphere, rather than relying on issuing tokens to attract short-term benefits.
However, I am not completely against issuing coins. It is okay to issue coins sooner or later, but it should not be the starting point of a project, but a tool for later development. Decentralized science requires longer-term planning and more solid advancement, rather than overdrawing expectations from the beginning. Only in this way can it be possible to truly promote the development of this field.
Future planning: integration of technology and art
Colin: Professor Hu, you can consider finding a few like-minded people to do a dedicated podcast together. For example, focusing on the decentralized science field that you are interested in, I think it would be great to do a weekly program.
Hu Yilin: Thank you for your suggestion! Actually, I do have similar plans. I rented a studio in Hong Kong before, and originally planned to use it to explore digital art. In the future, we may also develop some program-style content, not necessarily podcasts, but video programs or other types of creations. We have some relatively advanced MR systems, XR systems, and some scene designs related to digital art. Therefore, we may release programs on Video Account, YouTube, or Bilibili. This program may include both art and technology, and even cover topics such as academia and decentralized science.
We have some in-depth thoughts on the combination of technology and art. The split between technology and art is actually part of modernity, which gradually emerged after the Industrial Revolution. In earlier history, technology and art were integrated, and even the vocabulary was not distinguished. For example, the word "art" can refer to technology, art, and knowledge. This split is a product of the 18th, 19th, and even 20th centuries. We believe that this split may enter a new stage of integration in the future. As the saying goes, "After a long period of separation, there will be reunion." In the future, technology and art may be unified again.
This new integration is not just a combination of art and technology, but also involves philosophy, science, and even the overall direction of academia. For example, the function of universities we discussed earlier: What exactly are universities cultivating? Is the current education model just constantly creating "successors" to occupy the pit of academic resources? This is actually a big problem.
Ponzi schemes exist not only in the humanities, but also in science and engineering. Many talents trained in many majors can now be replaced by AI. Universities have long regarded human resources as their main training goal, but in the AI era, these human resources have gradually lost their advantages. The update speed of AI is much faster than the learning speed of humans. The cycle of a human generation may take decades, but AI is evolving almost every day.
Therefore, we need to rethink the meaning of learning. In a broad sense, why do humans need to learn? What should we learn? In a narrow sense, what is the future of universities? Although many universities may disappear in the transformation, some important heritages of human civilization still need to be preserved. So, how should we redefine learning and education? This will be a big topic.
