MegaETH Co-founder: Crypto Natives, Don't Be Cowards Holding Sharp Blades
- Core Viewpoint: Through personal observations of war, the author proposes that technology is merely an "amplifier" of a civilization's predetermined direction. Using this lens, they reflect on how the current cryptocurrency field has deviated from its cyberpunk origins of building an independent parallel financial system. Instead, it excessively caters to traditional finance in pursuit of "legitimacy," leading to the marginalization of many structurally important but "boring" infrastructure innovations.
- Key Elements:
- Technology as an Amplifier: During a civilization's upward phase, technology acts as a productivity booster; during a downward phase, it easily becomes a weapon for competing for attention or power. The current crypto space is caught in the latter kind of tug-of-war.
- Dilution of Original Intent by "Legitimacy": The original intent of cryptocurrency was to build a parallel financial system with fewer boundaries and lower coordination costs. However, the excessive integration with traditional finance in pursuit of "legitimacy" has led to the neglect of many important early use cases.
- The Paradox of Stablecoins: While realizing the vision of "internet money," most are merely better packaging of sovereign currencies, not structurally independent monetary systems.
- The Builder's Choice: Despite an unfavorable environment, builders can still choose which incentive mechanisms to encode, and communities can still decide which values to defend. The key lies in choosing to build "boring" infrastructure that expands true sovereignty.
- Call to Action: Crypto natives should reposition themselves, verify things firsthand, choose to do the right thing, and commit to forging a parallel path, rather than simply catering to existing power structures.
Original Author: brother bing / 饼兄, Co-founder of MegaETH
Original Compilation: Yuliya, PANews
After personally experiencing the Middle East conflict and witnessing the shock of missiles flying across the sky, the author gained a new understanding of the fundamental relationship between "technology and civilization." The article starts from the technical details of war, pointing out that technology is often just an "amplifier" of the direction of civilization, and from this, it connects to the internal contradictions within the current Crypto field. The author calls on crypto natives to rediscover their cyberpunk初心, reject simply catering to the "legitimacy" of traditional finance, and recommit to building truly sovereign infrastructure.
The full text is as follows:
I am writing and publishing this article after crossing the border between the UAE and Oman. The entire crossing process took about an hour and was incredibly smooth.
Over the past 48 hours, I have been utterly shocked by the technology involved in this war. This is the first time in my life I have seen missiles with my own eyes and watched interception systems destroy them mid-air. I also came across some surreal, geeky, and even bizarre details, such as reports that Israel hacked a prayer app to send messages to Iranians.
I have always worked in the tech industry, but this is my first time experiencing defense systems firsthand, giving me a new perspective to examine the relationship between "technology and civilization." Technology can create an illusion that it upgrades civilization; but in fact, it merely amplifies the predetermined direction of civilization, much like leveraged trading. (Don't despair just yet!) Allow me to explain.
Technology is an Amplifier of Civilizational Cycles
In a healthy, upward civilizational cycle, technology becomes a booster for productivity and a tool for coordination. This is exactly how the early internet felt. I still remember using various forums 17 years ago in Beijing when applying to American universities: strangers selflessly shared advice, essays, and strategies. Back then, concepts like "closed APIs" were practically unheard of.
But in a downward cycle, technology becomes something else. It becomes a weapon for competing for attention (and sometimes even a real lethal weapon!). My 60-year-old parents are more prone than I am to getting addicted to browsing negative videos, and many of my millennial friends are deeply concerned about their parents' state. The same internet that once granted us open knowledge is now nurturing algorithmic addiction.
This framework explains well the sense of tension felt by most crypto natives today. It feels like cryptocurrency was invented precisely for the world we are in now, yet everyone feels disappointed.
So, What Happened?
Many industry OGs have already discussed how we've forgotten the cypherpunk spirit or gotten too close to TradFi. I won't elaborate on that here, but I'd like to offer two thoughts.
Cryptocurrency was never meant to be just an asset class from the beginning. As Evgeny wrote in "The Golden Path," cryptocurrency was supposed to be a parallel system, a way to restructure finance with fewer boundaries, lower coordination costs, and flexible exit mechanisms.
Then, things shifted. "Legitimacy" was handed to us, and it came almost too easily. Once people get a taste of legitimacy, they want more. Technology, as an amplifier, naturally seeks the path of least resistance, which is to integrate with existing power structures to further solidify that legitimacy.
To be clear, there's nothing wrong with bringing institutions onto blockchain infrastructure. But somewhere along the way, we quietly abandoned many of our original dreams. I find myself thinking back more and more frequently to those early use cases: small-scale experiments with uncollateralized loans, tontine-like structures, and even better ways for cross-border savings and exchange.
These use cases are just too boring. They don't make headlines, let alone drive token hype. In the race for attention and valuation maximization, these niche but structurally significant ideas were marginalized.
Stablecoins perfectly embody this paradox. They fulfill the vision of "internet money," but often just as a better wrapper for sovereign currency, not as a structurally independent monetary system. By the way, Mega is also absolutely guilty in this regard. We still have a long way to go.
In my view, many of today's successful cases should be called "blockchain," not "cryptocurrency." If the goal is merely to be middleware for traditional finance, that's fine. But we should name it honestly. Backend integration does not equal radical innovation.
Price was never the real reason for the disappointment. The sad reality is that between "what we can build" and "what we choose to build," we chose wrong.
Revelations from War and Crypto Natives
Back to the original topic: What does this war tell me about crypto natives?
If we zoom out, civilizations indeed have cycles. As a Chinese person, I grew up hearing stories of dynastic changes. But in all those tales of emperors, generals, and rebels, what ultimately shines through is individual will.
I don't know how else to put it, but crypto natives will never win by being "likable."
The reason we achieved any initial success was because we kept finding reasons why the old systems were flawed and critiquing them publicly. Yet somehow, those anti-establishment voices got suppressed along the way.
In a downward cycle, it's easy to let technology amplify financialization, market manipulation, and superficial growth. It's much harder to use technology to quietly build the seemingly boring infrastructure that expands true sovereignty.
But builders can still choose which incentive mechanisms to encode. Founders can still decide which use cases to prioritize. More importantly, communities can still choose which values to defend.
If the social mood drifts towards insecurity and seeking validation, technology will amplify that insecurity. But if enough people deliberately anchor themselves to long-term structures, to coordination tools rather than attention traps, then perhaps leverage can still work in our favor.
My decision to cross the border into Oman wasn't approved by many friends. They told me it was chaotic, the border openings were unpredictable, and I'd be better off staying put. However, if I didn't go see for myself, I wouldn't know if these claims were true (and Dubai is already quite comfortable for most people, including me). It turned out the border was very quiet, almost empty, and the process was incredibly easy.
The world is not currently tilted in our favor, but in the long run, it likely is.
For us crypto natives, it's never too late to reposition ourselves, to verify things firsthand, to choose to do the right thing, and, in the most cliché terms—to forge a parallel path.
As my favorite YouTuber says: You might have a very sharp knife, but if the person holding it is a coward, nothing will happen. Let's sharpen our knives a bit more. Let's not be cowards.
