Written by: Liu Honglin
During the May Day holiday, I drove through the Hexi Corridor and finally returned to Xianyang.
Standing here, one cannot help but recall those familiar names from textbooks - Half Liang Coin, Five Zhu Coin, Chang'an, Han envoys to the Western Regions... If the Silk Road was a channel for cultural exchange, then Xianyang was its starting point - not just the departure point of the Silk Road, but also the origin of the imperial value order.
Xianyang's role in history was as an institutional initiator. It was not just the capital of the Qin Empire, but also the starting point of an entire system of "unifying measurements, standardizing credit, and organizing value circulation." Today, when we talk about "stablecoins," "Bitcoin," and "on-chain settlement," it may seem like technological innovation, but it's actually an old problem: Who issues currency, how is its price determined, and what maintains the value consensus?
The "Qin-Inheriting" Stablecoin: Practicality Trumps All
After unifying the six kingdoms, the first thing Qin did was not to expand taxation, but to standardize - unifying measurements, unifying writing, and of course, currency. Introducing the "Half Liang Coin" was a nationwide integration of monetary form and value standards, backed by administrative power.
The Han Dynasty further refined this structure. In the early Western Han, multiple currency system reforms were carried out, ultimately establishing the "Five Zhu Coin" as the national currency, and promoting the monetary system to serve foreign trade through border markets and gold settlements, forming the monetary foundation of the Silk Road.
Looking at stablecoins today, the logic is actually very similar. USDT is considered more stable than local fiat currency in many countries and regions. Not because it is politically stronger, but because it circulates more widely, has more transparent credit, and has lower transaction costs.
Isn't this a "Xianyang-level" functional node? It has no borders, but it has exchange rates; no emperor, but it has market consensus.
These coins like USDT and USDC don't rely on computing power or "decentralization" faith. They rely on anchoring, auditing, custody, and clearing efficiency - behind these elements is actually a system, just not a national system, but a new version composed of on-chain standards, commercial consensus, and quasi-regulatory combinations.
This "new type of Xianyang" no longer relies on terracotta warriors, city walls, and imperial decrees, but runs on on-chain addresses, circulation protocols, and transaction habits of "I acknowledge your transfer." It may not be legal, but it is indeed practical; it may not be stable, but it is a solution usable by most people in reality.
Its advantage lies precisely in the fact that it does not "oppose all centers" like Bitcoin, but selectively inherits old systems and interfaces with financial infrastructure, quickly becoming mainstream in scenarios such as cross-border payments, gray financial markets, and exchange rate hedging.
In other words, it is born for use, not for expression; it is an interface to the real world, not a chip in an ideal country. It is like the "Five Zhu Coin" of the digital age, emphasizing efficiency, compatibility, and universality - this is not a rebellion against the old order, but a digital rewriting of the system.
Bitcoin: Opposing All Centers
Bitcoin's logic stands almost completely in opposition to the system.
It does not recognize the state, has no center, and does not require you to "believe" any institution. What it wants is precisely "de-trust" - don't believe what anyone says or prints, rules are written in code, verified by the entire network, and no one can change them. Consensus is based on computing power, order on rules, with extreme logic and cold principles.
This design is not a random idea, but a response to long-standing issues in centralized monetary systems.
Towards the end of the Qin Dynasty, when finances were tight, the court secretly reduced the weight of the "Half Liang Coin," which looked unchanged but had significantly shrunk, causing market currency value fluctuations and a collapse of public trust.
Bitcoin is a thoroughly technological response to the problem of "credit overflow + uncontrollable system." It does not try to strengthen the center, but to eliminate it: not relying on the state or commercial credit, only on hard rule constraints.
It is indeed not suitable for high-frequency payments, has significant price volatility, and is difficult to integrate into daily life. But it is not designed for mainstream use; it is a bottom-line solution for edge cases - providing unique "safety" in scenarios of financial crises, hyperinflation, and political turmoil.
It is not for convenience, but for escape; not to make the system smoother, but to provide a way out when everything is completely out of control.
After Xianyang: Freedom of Choice
Qin's laws have been followed for generations. To some extent, we can say "Bitcoin is anti-Qin, stablecoins are Qin-inheriting." Bitcoin is a deep distrust of "centers will corrupt," while stablecoins are a realistic response to "systems must evolve."
History has long proven that truly stable circulating currency has never been about "everyone liking it," but about "institutional support." And the reason institutions can provide support is not idealism, but rules, governance, and compatibility. Whether you mint currency by decree or write it on a chain, the mechanism that "most people recognize" is your "institutional origin point."
Now, those institutional origin points have shifted from Chang'an and Washington to Tether's clearing address, USDC's audit report, EVM compatible interfaces, or some globally recognized on-chain stablecoin contract.
The Qin legacy remains, just transformed from city walls to protocols. And choosing to inherit or oppose the Qin system is actually a choice made by each user when they press the "send" button.
