After crossing the war-torn border, I reexamined the entire crypto world.

Author: Brother Bing (MegaETH Co-Founder)

Translation and compilation: BitpushNews

I wrote and published 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 stunned by the technology involved in this war. It was the first time in my life that I saw missiles with my own eyes and watched the interception systems destroy them. I also came across some surreal, geeky, and even somewhat eerie details, such as reports that Israeli hackers infiltrated a prayer app to send messages to Iranians.

I have always worked in the tech industry, but this is the first time I personally experienced defense systems. It gave me a new perspective on the relationship between technology and civilization.

Technology may give the illusion of “upgrading” civilization, but in reality, it simply amplifies the original direction of civilization’s progress—like leverage trading (don’t despair yet!).

Allow me to explain.

In a healthy cycle of civilizational growth, technology acts as a productivity booster and collaboration tool. The early internet felt exactly like that.

I still remember the help I received 17 years ago when applying to American universities in Beijing: strangers sharing advice, essays, and strategies (including how to wisely use early decision admissions). Back then, the concept of closed APIs was unheard of.

But in a downturn, technology becomes something else. It turns into a weapon of attention (sometimes even a real weapon!).

My 60-year-old parents are more addicted to apocalyptic scrolling than I am (many of my millennial friends are very worried about our parents). The same internet that once brought us open knowledge now feeds algorithmic addiction.

This framework explains the internal tension most crypto-native generations feel today. It seems that cryptocurrency was invented precisely for the world we live in now, yet everyone feels disappointed.

So what exactly happened?

I don’t want to repeat the clichés many OGs have already written about “forgetting the cyberpunk spirit” or “getting too close to traditional finance (TradFi).” Instead, I want to offer two ideas:

Cryptocurrency should never just be an asset class. As Evgeny wrote in The Golden Path, cryptocurrency aims to be a parallel system—a way to re-architect finance with fewer boundaries, lower collaboration costs, and more flexible exit mechanisms.

Then, things changed. Legitimacy was placed right in front of us, almost too easily. And once people tasted legitimacy, they wanted more.

Technology, as an amplifier, naturally seeks the path of least resistance: integrating with existing power structures to further gain this legitimacy.

It’s important to clarify that involving institutions in blockchain infrastructure isn’t wrong.

But in this process, we quietly abandoned many old dreams. I find myself increasingly returning to those early use cases: small-scale full-collateral/under-collateralized loans, Tontine-like (pension) structures, or even better cross-border savings and exchanges.

These use cases are too boring. They don’t make headlines, let alone hype tokens. In the race for attention and valuation, these niche but structurally meaningful ideas are marginalized.

Stablecoins perfectly embody this paradox. They fulfill the “internet money” narrative but are usually just a better “wrapper” for sovereign currencies, not 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 “victories” should be called “blockchain,” not “crypto.” If the goal is to serve as middleware for traditional finance, that’s fine. But let’s be honest: backend integration is not the same as reinventing.

Enough (Khalas). Price has never been the reason for disappointment. A sad reality is that between “what we can build” and “what we choose to build,” we chose the wrong direction.

Back to the original question: what does this war tell crypto people?

If we zoom out, civilizations do have their cycles. As a Chinese person, I learned about dynastic changes from a young age. But amid all those stories of emperors, generals, and rebels, what ultimately shines is individual agency.

I don’t know what more I can say, but the crypto native generation won’t win just because people like us.

Our initial success came from constantly identifying the flaws of old systems and openly criticizing them. Yet somehow, any voice opposing the establishment was silenced in the process.

In downturns, it’s easy to amplify financialization, manipulation, and superficial growth with technology. But quietly building infrastructure that can expand genuine sovereignty is much harder.

But developers can still choose what incentives to code. Founders can decide which use cases to prioritize. More importantly, communities can choose which values to defend.

If social sentiment shifts toward insecurity and seeking approval, technology will amplify that insecurity. But if enough people consciously anchor themselves to long-term structures, focusing on collaboration tools rather than attention traps, leverage might still work in our favor.

Many friends disapprove of my crossing into Oman, saying borders open and close chaotically, and urging me to stay in Dubai. Dubai is indeed very comfortable. But if I don’t verify myself, I’ll never know if those claims are true. The result: the border is quiet, few people, smooth process.

The world environment isn’t favorable to us now, but in the long run, it might be beneficial.

For us in crypto, reorienting ourselves, personally verifying, choosing the right things, and forging a parallel path in the most old-fashioned way is never too late.

Like my favorite YouTuber says: you can have a very sharp knife, but if the person holding it is a coward, nothing will happen. Let’s sharpen our blades. Let’s not be cowards.

QED.