Author: brother bing (MegaETH co-founder)
Compiled and edited by: BitpushNews
I am writing and publishing this article after crossing the border between the UAE and Oman. The crossing took about an hour and was very smooth.
Over the past 48 hours, I've been utterly awestruck by the technology involved in this war. This is the first time in my life I've witnessed a missile firsthand and watched an interceptor system destroy it. I've also come across some surreal, geeky, and even somewhat eerie details, such as reports of Israeli hackers breaking into a prayer app to send messages to Iranians.
I've always worked in the tech industry, but this is truly my first time experiencing a defense system firsthand. It has given me a completely new perspective on the relationship between technology and civilization.
Technology may give the illusion that it is “upgrading” civilization, but in reality, it merely amplifies the original direction of civilization’s progress—just like leveraged trading (don’t despair yet!).
Please allow me to explain.
In a healthy cycle of civilizational advancement, technology becomes a productivity booster and a tool for collaboration. This was certainly the feeling evoked by the early internet.
I still remember the help I received on various forums when I applied to American universities in Beijing 17 years ago: strangers sharing advice, essays, and strategies (including how to use early decision admissions wisely). At that time, the concept of a closed API was unheard of.
But in a downturn, technology becomes something else entirely. It becomes a weapon of attention (and sometimes even a real weapon!).
My 60-year-old parents are even more addicted to apocalyptic news feeds than I am (and many of my millennial friends are very worried about our parents). The same internet that once brought us open access to knowledge is now feeding us algorithm addiction.
This framework explains the internal tensions felt by most crypto natives today. It feels like cryptocurrencies were invented for the world we live in now, yet everyone is disappointed.
So, what exactly happened?
I don't want to repeat the clichés already written by many industry veterans (OGs) about "forgetting the cyberpunk spirit" or "getting too close to traditional finance (TradFi)." Instead, I'd like to offer two ideas:
Cryptocurrencies should never be just an asset class. As Evgeny writes in *The Golden Path*, cryptocurrencies are designed to be a parallel system, a way to restructure finance with fewer boundaries, lower collaboration costs, and flexible exit mechanisms.
Then, things changed. Legitimacy was presented to us, almost too easily. And once people tasted legitimacy, they wanted more.
Technology, acting as an amplifier, will naturally seek the path of least resistance: integration with existing power structures to further gain legitimacy.
It needs to be made clear that there is nothing wrong with bringing institutions into the blockchain infrastructure.
But in the process, we quietly abandoned many old dreams. I found myself increasingly returning to those earlier use cases: small-scale fully mortgaged/undermortgaged experiments, Tontine-like (pension) structures, and even better cross-border savings and exchange.
These use cases are too boring. They won't generate headlines, let alone token hype. In the race to maximize attention and valuation, these niche but structurally significant ideas have been marginalized.
Stablecoins perfectly embody this paradox. They fulfill the argument of "internet money," but are often merely a more convenient "package" for sovereign currencies rather than a structurally independent monetary system.
By the way, Mega definitely bears some responsibility. We still have a long way to go.
In my view, many of today's successes should be called "blockchain," not "cryptography." If the goal is to be middleware for traditional finance, that's fine too. But let's be honest about this: backend integration ≠ reinvention.
Enough. Price has never been the reason for disappointment. The sad reality is that we've chosen the wrong path between "what we can build" and "what we choose to build."
Returning to the original question: What did this war teach people in the crypto?
If we broaden our perspective, civilizations do indeed have cycles. As a Chinese person, I learned about the rise and fall of dynasties from a young age. But in all those stories about emperors, generals, and rebels, what ultimately shines is the agency of the individual.
I don't know what else to say, but native crypto won't win just because people like it.
Our initial success stemmed from our continuous identification of the shortcomings of the old system and our open criticism of them. Then, somehow, any voices against the establishment were silenced in the process.
In a downturn, it's easy to amplify financialization, manipulation, and superficial growth through technology. But it's much harder to use it to quietly build the mundane infrastructure that extends real sovereignty.
But developers can still choose which incentive mechanisms to code. Founders can still decide which use cases to prioritize. More importantly, the community can still choose which values to uphold.
If societal sentiment gravitates towards insecurity and the search for validation, technology amplifies that insecurity. But if enough people consciously anchor themselves to long-term structures, to collaborative tools rather than attention traps, then perhaps the leverage can still be at our disposal.
Many friends disapproved of my crossing the border to Oman, saying the border was constantly opening and closing, creating chaos, and advised me to stay in Dubai. Dubai is indeed very comfortable. But without experiencing it for myself, I'd never know if those claims were true or false. The result was that the border was quiet, sparsely populated, and the process was smooth.
The global environment is unfavorable to us, but in the long run it may be beneficial.
For those of us in the crypto, it's never too late to reposition ourselves, verify things ourselves, choose the right path, and forge a parallel road in the most traditional way.
As my favorite YouTuber said: You can have a very sharp knife, but if the person wielding it is a coward, nothing will happen. Let's sharpen our blades. Let's not be cowards.
Proof complete (QED).
Twitter: https://twitter.com/BitpushNewsCN
BitPush Telegram Community Group: https://t.me/BitPushCommunity
Subscribe to Bitpush Telegram: https://t.me/bitpush
