Move forward, don't look back: Written at the moment Manus' transaction was revoked

April 27th, Manus and Meta’s transaction that had been delayed for several months finally received the final result.

It’s not “continued review.”

It’s not “supplementary materials.”

It’s a ban on investment and a requirement to revoke the deal.

These words are very heavy.

Because they express not just an ordinary business opinion, but an attitude.

Meta buying fewer companies is of course not the end of the world.

Manus losing $2 billion is also not the first bubble burst in the AI industry.

Every day in the startup world, there are failures in funding, mergers and acquisitions, zero valuations—these stories are not new.

But this time is different.

In the past, many entrepreneurs were used to viewing their companies as purely commercial entities.

Good products, user growth, rising valuations, capital exit—this was a very natural path.

But AI is not the next-generation internet business.

AI is not a new app category, nor is it a smarter office tool.

AI is becoming the key to the next round of competition.

Whoever masters the model capabilities, who controls the next-generation software interface.

Whoever owns intelligent agent products, who might control the next workflow.

Whoever controls AI infrastructure and application ecosystems, who will have an extra card in future industry division of labor.

It’s not just a company stumbling.

It’s an old world model failing.

PART 01: The Old World Model Has Failed

In the past decade or so, Chinese entrepreneurs actually had a very mature default script in mind.

People are in China, markets are in China, engineers are in China, products grow in China.

But funding can be in dollars, legal entities can be registered in the Cayman Islands, listings can be in the U.S., and offices can be moved to Hong Kong, Singapore, or Silicon Valley when necessary.

This setup has been running for many years.

The underlying assumption behind it is:

China needs growth, the U.S. needs assets, capital needs to exit, entrepreneurs need stories.

Everyone cooperates in a fuzzy zone, able to grow the company, enable capital exit, and let founders go ashore—that’s considered success.

The core contradiction of that era was not “who owns the technology,” but “how to grow the company, how to exit capital, and how to continue growth.”

As long as this big logic remains, many ambiguities can be tolerated.

You can have Chinese operations, dollar capital, offshore structures, or list in the U.S.

Everyone knows there are many gray areas, but that era was willing to leave an exit route for such gray areas.

But AI is different.

AI is not group buying, takeout, e-commerce, or an upgrade of short video recommendation algorithms.

Today, AI has already been incorporated into the competitive framework.

Model capabilities, engineering talent, training data, inference systems, intelligent agent products, commercialization gateways—any link can be regarded as a strategic asset.

At this point, using the worldview of internet companies from the 2010s to handle AI companies in 2026 will cause problems.

Many people are not lacking judgment; their world model just hasn’t been updated.

They still think this is a capital game, but in fact, the game table has changed.

Previously, you mainly faced investors, users, exchanges, and M&A lawyers.

Now, you also have to face security reviews, export controls, technological boundaries, and competition.

This is not just a change in China.

The U.S. is also changing.

In the past, global capital believed in efficiency.

Where there was cheaper talent, capital flowed there;

Where there was a bigger market, companies went there;

Where valuations were higher, projects listed there.

The underlying logic of globalization was resource allocation efficiency.

But today, the underlying logic of globalization is becoming borders.

Technology has borders.

Data has borders.

Computing power has borders.

Capital has borders.

Talent mobility is also beginning to have borders.

This is the hardest thing for many entrepreneurs to accept.

It’s not that they are no longer working hard, or that their products have no opportunities, but that their mental map has expired.

Entrepreneurs’ biggest fear is not hardship.

They all know hardship.

What they fear most is running forward desperately, only to find the map has changed halfway.

PART 02: Location, Location, and Still Location

In the business world, many people like to talk about capability.

Product capability, funding capability, growth capability, organizational capability, technical capability, storytelling ability.

Of course, all these are important.

But in a big era, the most important thing is often not capability, but position.

Where are you standing?

Whose value are you proving?

Whose soil are you growing in?

At a critical moment, who do you entrust your technological assets to?

These questions seem abstract in daily life.

Entrepreneurs don’t like to write them in pitch decks, and investors don’t necessarily like to ask.

Everyone cares more about ARR, DAU, retention, valuation, who will invest in the next round.

This is how the human business world works: the more indicators, the easier the mind is to pretend to be clear-headed.

But when the documents land, these questions become very concrete.

Manus’s problem is not that it wants to go international.

Of course, Chinese companies can go international.

Nor is it that it wants to earn dollars.

Startups want to exit, and that’s not a sin.

The real problem is that it seems not to have thought through its position clearly.

If from day one you decide to be a fully American company, then you should register, fundraise, hire, develop, serve customers, and comply with regulations in the U.S. from day one.

If from day one you decide to be a fully Singaporean company, then you should build your team, do business, establish compliance, and follow local rules in Singapore from day one.

These are all choices.

But if you grew up in the Chinese tech ecosystem, benefited from Chinese engineer dividends, and enjoyed Chinese AI startup narratives,

and then, after early voice in the Chinese market and Chinese internet, when valuation skyrockets, you package yourself as a “non-Chinese asset,” and finally sell to a U.S. giant—that’s where problems arise.

Because in this era, identity is not something you declare yourself.

Identity is determined by your history.

Where you accumulate technology, where you recruit core talent, where you gain initial attention, where you validate your product, where you build team capabilities—these all become part of your identity.

Entrepreneurs can change registration locations.

They can change offices.

They can change funding entities.

They can change PR narratives.

But it’s very hard to change your growth history.

This is the coldest point of the Manus incident.

It’s not just about where you are now.

It’s also about where you come from.

PART 03: Must Have Value

In China, doing tech startups, many people are reluctant to talk about risks, which is understandable.

Entrepreneurs like to talk about products, users, cash flow, and next funding rounds.

Other things seem too distant, too heavy, and too uncomfortable.

But not talking about them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

When the grand narrative has not yet affected your funding, exit, compliance, M&A, and team mobility, you can pretend you are just an ordinary entrepreneur.

But once AI is incorporated into the competition, if you don’t talk about it, it will talk about you.

The value of a tech company in the system roughly has three states.

First, positive value.

You can fill technological gaps, enhance industry capabilities, and give China more chips in a key area.

You don’t necessarily have to shout slogans, but your existence objectively strengthens this system.

Second, zero value.

You are just an ordinary commercial company, making your own products, earning your own money, not very important, and not very risky.

The system may not care about you; you may not have much impact on the big picture.

Third, negative value.

You originally grew within the Chinese tech ecosystem, but in the end, you might pack your key team, technological assets, product experience, and strategic narratives into a U.S. giant.

At this point, it’s no longer about “contribution,” but about “whether you set a demonstration effect.”

If you become negative value, it’s very easy to be made into a typical example.

This phrase sounds harsh, but it’s a cold judgment.

Not because a company is particularly important, but because it represents a certain path.

The system’s goal is often not to eliminate individual companies, but to eliminate this kind of path itself.

If Manus’s path is successful, what will happen next?

A group of Chinese AI entrepreneurs will see this path.

First, develop technology and reputation in China.

Then move to Singapore.

Then sell to U.S. giants.

Finally, explain everything with “globalized entrepreneurship.”

If this path is validated as successful, it will be a very bad example for China’s AI ecosystem.

Because it will tell future entrants:

You can first enjoy the dividends of China’s tech ecosystem, then grow big, then cut out, and finally be acquired and integrated by U.S. tech giants.

From an entrepreneur’s personal perspective, this is certainly tempting.

But from a competitive standpoint, it’s a different story.

That’s why Manus’s deal being halted is not just about Manus.

It’s about telling future players:

This path is not feasible.

PART 04: You Can’t Have It Both Ways

So, this isn’t about saying all entrepreneurs must stay, or that all Chinese-background companies can’t go abroad.

Quite the opposite.

AI startups should be global from the start.

Good products should serve global users.

Chinese entrepreneurs shouldn’t confine themselves to one market.

Tools, agents, content creation, enterprise automation, developer services—these inherently have global markets.

But going abroad and cutting off are not the same.

Globalization and arbitrage are not the same.

You can choose, but don’t expect to do so without paying a price.

If you don’t want to be part of the Chinese tech ecosystem, you should leave from day one.

Go to the U.S., Singapore, Europe—anywhere.

From day one, raise funds there, hire locally, set up your company, develop products, and comply with local regulations.

That’s a clear choice.

You can also choose to stay seriously.

Acknowledge that you are within the Chinese tech system, serving Chinese industries, participating in China’s AI ecosystem, following rules, and understanding your capital, market, technology, and system relationships.

That’s also a clear choice.

The real danger is the middle path.

Starting with Chinese speed.

Raising funds at dollar valuations.

Spreading with a global halo.

Exiting with U.S. giants taking over.

When the system arrives, claiming to be just an ordinary business.

This is not globalization.

It’s not completing a choice.

Many used to call this state “smart.”

Because in periods of peace, ambiguity is a space.

You can shift between different rules, switch between markets, and seek maximum benefit in different narratives.

But in conflict periods, ambiguity is risk.

When China-U.S. tech competition reaches the AI level, many things that could be blurred before will be redefined.

Previously, you could say capital has no borders.

Now, people ask: who does capital empower?

Previously, you could say technology has no borders.

Now, people ask: where does technology ultimately flow?

Previously, you could say startups are just commercial entities.

Now, people ask: where does this company stand in the next industry competition?

This is not only a question for China.

The U.S. is also asking.

So it’s not just China tightening regulations; the whole world is changing.

Whereas before, global capital believed in efficiency, now national competition believes in borders.

If entrepreneurs fail to recognize this change and continue to use the previous internet-era model for AI companies, that’s not bravery, it’s misjudgment.

PART 05: Keep Moving Forward, Don’t Look Back

So, the reminder for all AI entrepreneurs is very simple:

Keep moving forward, don’t look back.

This isn’t some motivational speech.

It’s not a call for blind rushing.

It means: if you choose a path, you must accept its costs.

If you want to be an American company, start as one from day one.

If you want to be a Singaporean company, start as one from day one.

If you want to be a Chinese company, accept that you are within the Chinese system, and think clearly about your technology, capital, market, and regulatory relationships.

Every position has its benefits.

Every position has its costs.

The biggest mistake entrepreneurs make is wanting to take the benefits of each position without bearing the costs.

If you choose China, don’t expect to design your exit based entirely on the previous U.S. internet model.

If you choose the U.S., don’t expect to always call on Chinese technology ecosystems at low cost.

If you choose Singapore, don’t think it’s just a neutral shell that can erase all your historical sources.

The most dangerous thing is those who never want to choose.

This is an era that requires better judgment of position.

You need to know who you are.

You need to know where you come from.

You need to know who you are proving value to.

And you need to know where you stand when the big lines are redrawn.

This is not moral performance.

It’s strategic judgment.

Many entrepreneurs like to say they only care about products, users, and cash flow.

That’s of course correct.

But if an era’s changes can determine your funding, exit, M&A, compliance, and company identity, then recognizing the era itself is also a form of entrepreneurial ability.

It might even be the most important entrepreneurial skill.

Because if your product is wrong, you can fix it.

If your funding rhythm is wrong, you can make up for it.

But if your position is wrong, the cost can be enormous.

In the face of a big era, intelligence is no longer the most important.

Position is.

Keep moving forward, don’t look back.

Not because the front is necessarily safe.

But because the road back no longer exists.