I am writing and publishing this article after crossing the border between the UAE and Oman. The crossing took about an hour and the process was very smooth.
In the past 48 hours, I have been completely shocked by the technology involved in this war. This is the first time in my life that I have witnessed missiles with my own eyes and watched interception systems destroy them. I also came across some surreal, geeky, and even a bit eerie details, such as reports that Israeli hackers hacked a prayer app to send messages to Iranians.
I have been in the tech industry for a long time, but this is indeed the first time I have personally experienced a defense system. This has given me a new perspective on the relationship between technology and civilization. Technology may give the illusion that it is “upgrading” civilization, but in fact, it is only amplifying the original direction of civilization – like leveraged trading (don’t despair yet!).
In a healthy civilization’s upward cycle, technology becomes a productivity booster and a tool for collaboration. The early Internet felt exactly like that. I still remember the help I received from various forums 17 years ago when I applied to American universities in Beijing: strangers sharing advice, essays, and strategies (including how to use early decision admissions wisely). At that time, the concept of closed APIs was unheard of.
But in a downward cycle, technology becomes something else. It becomes a weapon of attention (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 for the kind of world we live in now, yet everyone is disappointed.
I don’t want to repeat the clichés that many crypto OGs have already written about “forgetting the cyberpunk spirit” or “getting too close to TradFi”. I want to offer two thoughts:
-
Cryptocurrency should never have been just an asset class. As Evgeny wrote in “Golden Path,” cryptocurrency is intended to be a parallel system, a way to restructure finance with fewer borders, lower collaboration costs, and flexible exit mechanisms. Then, things shifted. Legitimacy was placed before us, almost too easily. And once people taste legitimacy, they want more. Technology, as an amplifier, naturally seeks the path of least resistance: merging with existing power structures to further gain this legitimacy. To be clear, there is nothing wrong with introducing institutions to blockchain infrastructure. But in the process, we quietly abandoned many old dreams. I find myself increasingly returning to those early use cases: small-scale fully collateralized / undercollateralized lending experiments, 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 to maximize attention and valuation, these niche but structurally significant ideas have been marginalized.
-
Backend integration ≠ reinvention. Stablecoins perfectly embody this paradox. They fulfill the “Internet money” argument, but are often just a better “wrapper” for sovereign currency, rather than a structurally independent monetary system. By the way, Mega is definitely also responsible. We still have a long way to go.
In my opinion, many of today’s successes should be called…
[BitpushNews]
Market Analysis: Crypto’s Identity Crisis and the Return to Parallel Systems
In a thought-provoking piece from the MegaETH co-founder, we’re witnessing more than just a philosophical reflection—it’s a potential harbinger of market sentiment shift. The author’s personal experience witnessing technology’s dual nature as both a tool for progress and a weapon in conflict zones provides an unexpectedly relevant lens through which to view crypto’s current identity crisis.
The Core Dilemma: Parallel Systems vs. Integration
The author’s central thesis—that cryptocurrency was originally conceived as a parallel financial system rather than merely an asset class—strikes at the heart of crypto’s market evolution. This perspective explains the growing tension between ideological purists and market pragmatists. The “race to maximize attention and valuation” mentioned by the author has undeniably driven capital toward projects that promise quick returns and easy regulatory acceptance, often at the expense of the foundational vision.
Market Implications and Token Reactivity
This philosophical reevaluation could trigger several market movements:
-
Valuation Realignment: Projects positioned as “better wrappers” for traditional finance may face downward pressure as their structural limitations are more widely acknowledged. The stablecoin critique, in particular, could impact USDT, USDC, and other fiat-pegged tokens as investors question their long-term viability as independent monetary systems.
-
MegaETH’s Position: The founder’s candid self-assessment acknowledges their project’s shortcomings while signaling a potential strategic pivot. For MEGA holders, this could represent either a buying opportunity (if the project successfully refocuses) or a risk (if the pivot fails to materialize).
-
Privacy and Anonymity Tokens: Projects like Monero (XMR) and Zcash (ZEC) could benefit from renewed interest as they represent more genuine attempts to create parallel systems operating outside traditional financial oversight.
Strategic Opportunities for Investors
The current market moment presents several strategic considerations:
-
Fundamental Use Cases Over Hype: The author’s reference to “small-scale fully collateralized / undercollateralized lending experiments, Tontine-like structures” suggests that projects with demonstrated utility beyond token appreciation may be undervalued. These “boring” but structurally significant applications could represent the next wave of sustainable value creation.
-
Cross-Border Solutions: The specific mention of cross-border savings and exchange indicates that projects genuinely solving friction in international payments—particularly those that don’t rely on traditional banking rails—may be positioned for outsized growth.
-
Infrastructure vs. Application: While many investors have focused on user-facing applications, the underlying infrastructure that enables true parallel systems may present more compelling long-term value propositions.
Risks on the Horizon
-
Regulatory Arbitrage: As the author notes, the quest for legitimacy has driven much of crypto’s integration with existing systems. This could accelerate regulatory crackdowns on projects perceived as attempting to circumvent financial controls.
-
Market Fragmentation: The philosophical divide between parallel systems and integration approaches could lead to market fragmentation, with capital flowing to increasingly distinct sectors based on ideological rather than fundamental considerations.
-
Institutional Adoption Paradox: The very integration that drives institutional adoption contradicts the parallel systems ethos. Projects attempting to balance these competing priorities may face structural challenges in delivering on both fronts.
Conclusion: A Market at an Inflection Point
The author’s reflection represents more than just personal philosophy—it captures a critical juncture in crypto’s evolution. As the market matures, we may be approaching a point where genuine innovation and structural independence will be rewarded over mere integration and regulatory compliance. For seasoned investors, this means carefully evaluating projects not just for their current market position, but for their alignment with crypto’s original vision of creating parallel financial systems. The coming months could reveal whether the market will reward this ideological purity or continue its current trajectory of integration with existing power structures.