Author: brother bing, co-founder of MegaETH

Translated by: Yuliya, PANews

After personally experiencing the Middle East conflict and witnessing the shocking sight of missiles flying, the author gained a new understanding of the fundamental relationship between "technology and civilization." The article begins with technical details from the war, pointing out that technology often serves merely as an "amplifier" for the direction of civilization, which leads to a reflection on the internal contradictions currently present in the Crypto space. The author calls on crypto natives to rekindle their cyberpunk spirit, reject mere compliance with the "legitimacy" of traditional finance, and recommit to building truly sovereign infrastructures.

The full content is as follows:

I wrote and published this article after crossing the border between the UAE and Oman. The entire crossing process took about an hour and was remarkably smooth.

In the past 48 hours, I have been thoroughly shocked by the technology involved in this war. This is the first time in my life I have witnessed missiles firsthand and watched interception systems destroy them in mid-air. I have also encountered some surreal, geeky, and somewhat bizarre details, such as reports of Israel hacking a prayer app to send messages to Iranians.

I have been working in the tech industry, but this was my first personal experience with a defense system, giving me a new perspective on the relationship between "technology and civilization." Technology may give the illusion that it can upgrade civilization; however, in reality, it merely amplifies the established direction of civilization, much like leveraged trading. (Don't despair just yet!) Allow me to explain.

Technology as an Amplifier of Civilizational Cycles

In a healthy civilizational rise, technology acts as a booster of productivity and a coordinating tool. The early Internet felt exactly like that. I still remember, 17 years ago, when I applied to American universities in Beijing, how various forums allowed strangers to selflessly share advice, documents, and strategies. Back then, the concept of "closed APIs" was virtually unheard of.

But during a downturn, technology becomes something else. It turns into a weapon for capturing attention (and sometimes even real lethal weapons!). My 60-year-old parents are more easily obsessed with browsing negative videos, and many of my millennial friends are quite concerned about this state of their parents. The same Internet that once empowered us with open knowledge is now nourishing algorithmic addiction.

This framework aptly explains the sense of tension felt by most crypto natives today. It feels as though cryptocurrencies were invented for the world we find ourselves in now, yet everyone feels disappointed.

So, what exactly happened?

Many industry OGs have discussed our forgetting of the crypto punk spirit or getting too close to TradFi; I won’t elaborate further here but would like to present two points for consideration.

Cryptocurrencies should not have been merely an asset class from the very beginning. As Evgeny wrote in Golden Path, cryptocurrencies were supposed to be a parallel system, a way to reconstruct finance with fewer boundaries, lower coordination costs, and flexible exit mechanisms.

Then, the situation changed. "Legitimacy" was handed to us, and it came almost too easily. Once people had a taste of legitimacy, they wanted more. As an amplifier, technology will inherently seek the path of least resistance, which is to merge with existing power structures to further consolidate that legitimacy.

It is important to clarify that there’s nothing wrong with bringing institutions into blockchain infrastructure. But at some point in that process, we quietly abandoned many of our initial dreams. I find myself reminiscing more frequently about those early use cases: small-scale unsecured loan experiments, structures resembling tontines, and even better cross-border saving and exchange methods.

These use cases were just too boring. They didn’t make headlines, let alone drive token hype. In the race to maximize attention and valuation, these niche yet structurally significant ideas were marginalized.

Stablecoins perfectly embody this paradox. They realized the vision of "internet currency," but often serve merely as a better packaging of sovereign currency rather than an independent monetary system. By the way, Mega is absolutely not innocent in this regard. We have a long way to go.

In my view, many of today’s successful cases should be called "blockchain" rather than "cryptocurrency." If the goal is just to become middleware for traditional finance, that’s fine. But we should honestly name it. Backend integration does not equate to thorough innovation.

The price has never been the true reason for everyone’s disappointment. The sad reality is that between "what we could build" and "what we chose to build," we made the wrong choice.

Wars and Insights for Crypto Natives

Returning to the initial topic: What did this war teach me about crypto natives?

If we zoom out, civilizations indeed have cycles. As a Chinese person, I grew up hearing stories of the rise and fall of dynasties. But among all those tales of emperors, generals, and rebels, what ultimately shines through is the indomitable human will.

I don’t know how else to say it, but crypto natives will never win for being "likable."

Our initial success came from continually finding and criticizing the flaws of the old system in public. However, for some reason, those voices opposing institutions were suppressed in the process of development.

During a downturn, it is easy for technology to amplify financialization, market manipulation, and superficial growth. But using technology to silently build foundational infrastructures that can expand true sovereignty, though appearing boring, is much more challenging.

However, builders can still choose which incentives to write into code. Founders can still decide which use cases to prioritize. More importantly, communities can still choose which values to defend.

If the social sentiment drifts toward insecurity and seeking validation, technology will amplify that insecurity. But if enough people consciously anchor themselves to long-term structures, anchoring to coordinating tools rather than attention traps, then leverage may still work to our benefit.

My decision to cross the border into Oman did not receive much support from friends. They told me it was chaotic there, the border switches were unpredictable, and I might as well stay put. However, if I didn’t go see for myself, I wouldn’t know if those claims were true (and Dubai is already quite comfortable for most people, including me). It turns out, the border was very quiet, almost empty, and the whole process was quite easy.

This world currently may not be leaning in our favor, but in the long run, it may very well be advantageous for us.

For we crypto natives, it is never too late to reposition ourselves, verify firsthand, choose to do the right thing, and in the most conventional terms—forge a parallel path.

As my favorite YouTuber says: you might have a very sharp knife, but if the one wielding the knife is a coward, then nothing will happen. Let’s sharpen our knives further. Let’s not be cowards.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。