Some Views on a Certain Industry Insider

Recently, a well-known figure in the industry published an eye-catching long article. The article revolves around the new bill recently passed in the United States, arguing that this is an important juncture in the history of modern currency, comparable to the Bretton Woods Conference and the significant changes during the Nixon era. The author asserts that a global network of dollar stablecoins has formed, and other countries are facing a severe challenge to their monetary sovereignty.

This article is beautifully written, with a broad perspective that leaves a deep impression on the reader. However, upon closer reflection, I can't help but ask: who is the target audience for this article?

If it is aimed at government decision-makers, it is likely to underestimate the strategic layout of the country in the blockchain field in recent years. Since 2019, when blockchain was positioned as a breakthrough in core technology innovation, the central bank has been promoting digital currency projects while emphasizing the importance of blockchain from an institutional level. Various distributed ledger platforms and consortium chain projects are also thriving. Although not every project is satisfactory, saying "to ignore blockchain and sit idly by while falling behind" is clearly inconsistent with the facts.

If we are facing the industry, especially domestic internet companies, such criticism seems even more inappropriate. In recent years, Chinese internet companies have never stopped exploring the Web3 field, from NFTs to public chains, from digital wallets to the metaverse, attempting to involve multiple directions. Although the paths for real application are limited due to compliance restrictions and uncertainties in overseas policies, we cannot deny their efforts.

In fact, if we really want to reflect, we should criticize those behaviors that carry the banner of blockchain to commit financial fraud.

Ultimately, this article seems to express the author's own insights more. The call to "re-understand blockchain," the reflection on "missed opportunities," and even the need to "apologize" to blockchain—these words sound sincere and moving.

But the question is: if we truly love this land as expressed in the text, shouldn't we personally participate, take action, and actively contribute?

It is certainly easy to comment from a distance, but the progress of the industry cannot be driven by just a few passionate articles. True development relies on those who work silently and focus on infrastructure construction.

Now, what the industry needs most is "less talk about ideology and more problem-solving." The real challenge is not "whether to recognize the technological revolution," but "how to steadily advance this revolution within the existing institutional framework."

The international phenomena mentioned in the text, such as the Australian central bank slowing down, Singapore's policy being uncertain, and Wall Street banks being reluctant to implement internal assessments, do they not indicate that this is a global issue involving a complex game between technology, regulation, innovation, and order?

It is overly simplistic to reduce these phenomena to "pretending to sleep" or "a collective misjudgment of technology."

In our industry, too many people have wrapped their opinions in "sentiment." Today it's about currency revolution, tomorrow it's about sovereignty challenges, and the day after it's about the transformation of civilization forms. But when you ask them what they are specifically doing—products, compliance, or underlying technology, many people may have done nothing at all, at most they received a few industry friends in Silicon Valley, attended a few overseas conferences, and then returned to write articles about the "lack of global governance strategy."

This article indeed has its value, as it makes more people aware of the importance of US dollar stablecoins in international geopolitics. However, if it is truly as stated in the article, with a concern for the country and the people, then I would prefer to see some practical work being done, like those entrepreneurs in Hong Kong who quietly promote compliant exchanges and stablecoins, or those technical teams focused on on-chain payment infrastructure, even if it's just a small step.

Because what this industry lacks the most is not articles, but applications; not shouting, but systems; not emotions, but construction.

Instead of saying sorry to blockchain, it's better to say thank you to those developers who are still striving, and to those who are dedicated to positive entrepreneurship.

We should no longer waste time on self-indulgent sentimentality. Let's focus our energy on practical actions.