Editor: Wu Shuo Blockchain
In this episode of the podcast, Hu Yilin shares his decision-making process for leaving Tsinghua University and moving to Singapore, which is influenced by the limitations of the academic system and his interest in free academia and the blockchain ecosystem. Hu Yilin is a PhD from Peking University's Department of Philosophy and an associate professor in the Department of History of Science at Tsinghua University. He is one of the few university teachers in the Chinese-speaking world actively participating in blockchain activities.
Hu Yilin delves into the impact of the "non-promotion means departure" academic mechanism on young scholars and analyzes the dilemmas of higher education reform. At the same time, he expresses deep insights into Bitcoin, NFTs, decentralized science, and other fields, explaining his reasons for choosing Singapore as a long-term development location, particularly its friendliness towards the cryptocurrency ecosystem and family environment. Finally, he looks forward to the future of the integration of technology and art, proposing challenges on how to redefine learning and education in the AI era.
The audio-to-text conversion used GPT, so there may be errors. Listen to the full podcast:
Reasons for Leaving Tsinghua
Colin: Hello, listeners. As you all know, our old friend, Professor Hu, is an associate professor in the Department of History of Science at Tsinghua University, but now he has left and moved to Singapore. Professor Hu, why don't you tell us about this process?
Hu Yilin: It's like going ALL IN on Web3. First, let me clarify that it’s not really a resignation; it’s more of a natural departure. Young scholars nowadays are quite competitive and have to go through the "non-promotion means departure" mechanism. This means you must pass the tenure review within six years, or you have to leave. I decided not to participate in the review.
The "non-promotion means departure" mechanism was pioneered by Tsinghua. Tsinghua and Peking University were the first to implement this system. It is modeled after the American academic system, but to be honest, the American academic world isn't that great either. Moreover, when China borrowed this model, it became somewhat distorted. However, to be fair, Tsinghua is still much better than many other universities in China. My experience at Tsinghua was that, at least, Tsinghua respects its teachers relatively well.
Although I left Tsinghua, I don't have much dissatisfaction. Mainly, Tsinghua does respect its teachers. This respect can be divided into two aspects. One is treating teachers as "insiders." Many universities that implement the non-promotion means departure mechanism treat teachers like temporary workers, exploiting their research output during the golden years of young scholars before they turn 35. Tsinghua is relatively better; it focuses more on the quality of papers rather than quantity. Tsinghua uses a representative work mechanism, where papers only need to reach an internationally or domestically leading level without requiring a particularly high quantity. So, I think this aspect is acceptable. But even so, I ultimately chose to leave. This year just happened to be the end of my contract, so I left naturally.
Actually, I followed Professor Wu Guosheng from Peking University to Tsinghua. I am one of the veterans in the Department of History of Science at Tsinghua. A group of us veterans from the department has now left. Interestingly, not a single young teacher in the Department of History of Science has passed the tenure review. Each person's situation is different, with various reasons, but in the end, no one stayed.
Some went abroad, some went to other schools. Some didn't pass the review and didn't get tenure, while others chose to change careers, such as becoming monks. In short, there are various situations, and everyone is going their own way.
Dilemmas of Academic System Reform
Colin: It seems that universities today are really different from before. It used to feel like entering a university was like entering a stable system where you could just coast along, but now it seems the pressure has increased.
Hu Yilin: Yes, this is the core of the academic issue. We can also talk about decentralized science (DeSci), which is about the decentralization of academia and research. I have strong feelings about this. Whether in traditional academic models or the current academic model, whether in China or the West, there are significant problems, and it can even be said that they are not very adaptable to current developments.
In the past, Tsinghua and Peking University took the lead in reform, which was, in a sense, necessary. Under the traditional model, the academic world often turned into a "land-grabbing game." For example, a professor occupies a position, and no one cares about the quality of their research, especially in the humanities. Someone occupies a position, and regardless of whether their research is outstanding, that position is theirs. This model is indeed not conducive to academic mobility and makes it difficult to create a good academic atmosphere. Thus, later reforms introduced the "non-promotion means departure" mechanism, turning a secure job into a temporary position.
The so-called non-promotion means departure is generally a six-year mechanism. The first six years after you graduate with a PhD are the golden years of your academic career, but under the non-promotion means departure mechanism, you are a temporary worker during this time. To pass the review, you need to work hard to publish papers and pursue research projects, pushing yourself to the limit. All the results belong to the school, but you may still not get tenure and have to leave.
What happens next? You might go to a second-tier or third-tier university, or even struggle to find a job. By then, you have already passed the golden period for academic output, and your research productivity declines, with fewer job opportunities. This model is not friendly to scholars.
However, in a relatively balanced environment, this model might still work, like at Tsinghua. Tsinghua's non-promotion means departure mechanism puts some pressure on you, but it’s not that harsh. Research is relatively free, and teaching is also valued, with less pressure to compete. However, such environments are rare. Tsinghua's fatal problem is insufficient funding and low salaries. It's like in the job market; places with high salaries, like large companies, can be extremely competitive, while places like Tsinghua, where the pay is low, may have slightly less pressure, but contradictions still exist.
From a broader trend perspective, this "competition" is unsolvable. I once saw an article comparing university faculty positions to a "Ponzi scheme." Especially in the humanities, the best outcome for a PhD is to teach at a university, but faculty positions are limited. A professor might train 20 students, and those students train more, creating an infinite demand for expansion. However, the actual number of faculty positions does not increase that much.
In the past, the expansion of universities in China and the West alleviated this problem to some extent. For example, population growth and the popularization of education created more demand for universities. But when the expansion ends, like now with population decline and educational demand nearing saturation, the problem becomes exposed. In the future, universities will enter a period of contraction, and this mechanism will become increasingly unsustainable.
Colin: I didn't expect the academic world to be a Ponzi scheme, similar to the crypto world.
Hu Yilin: Yes. Many disciplines have similar issues. The field of history of science, where I am, is somewhat more adaptable because we undertake general education tasks. But for some less popular specialized disciplines, the problems are severe. A professor often trains students only to take over their position; if each generation only recruits one student, courses cannot be offered. But offering courses requires more students, and what will those students do in the future? This is the reason the model is unsustainable and needs reform.
Both China and the West have this problem, but China's issue is more severe. China completed in a decade or two what took the West over a hundred years to expand. This rapid expansion makes it harder for the Chinese academic world to adapt to a rapidly contracting environment. The West also has similar problems, but the pace is slower, allowing for more time to adjust.
Reasons for Choosing Singapore After Departure
Colin: Professor Hu, when did you start considering leaving academia? And why did you choose Singapore? Is it related to Web3 or blockchain?
Hu Yilin: The idea of leaving academia was something I considered from the beginning. I never regarded academia as a "secure job," so I always thought about what to do if I didn't pass tenure. Of course, if I didn't pass Tsinghua's tenure, I could still go to some top universities in China; I can't call them second-tier since Tsinghua is top-tier, and finding a teaching position at a regular top university shouldn't be a big problem. But the question is whether to continue in academia or simply quit and become a freelance scholar, which I have been contemplating.
The reason I teach is not to find a "secure job." As a Bitcoin player, we believe in not relying on so-called "secure jobs." Such things may seem stable, but they are actually unreliable. Even tenure is not a true secure job. If the entire system collapses and the Ponzi scheme cannot be sustained, the so-called secure job becomes meaningless. Moreover, even if there is a secure job, the pay might decrease.
Take Tsinghua as an example; its salary is notoriously low. Tsinghua attracted people with high salaries in the early stages of institutional reform, but it does not offer tenure. The high income and good treatment provided at that time were very competitive. However, now other universities across the country have started to implement quasi-tenure mechanisms, but their pay has increased, while Tsinghua's pay has not changed significantly. As a result, although Tsinghua's "secure job" still exists, the pay is no longer sufficient. In this situation, the so-called "secure job" has instead become an "iron constraint," hindering you from jumping to a more free environment for development.
Despite this, my time at Tsinghua was still good. I don't rely on my salary to support myself; instead, I enjoy the sense of achievement that teaching brings. This sense of achievement cannot be bought with money. The feeling of preparing courses and theories that can influence those excellent students is irreplaceable. However, over time, this sense of achievement has also changed. For example, when training PhD students, you feel responsible for their future, but you know they will ultimately enter the academic Ponzi scheme. This contradiction greatly diminishes my sense of achievement in teaching.
On the other hand, in recent years, I have communicated with many people in the crypto world and also felt a sense of achievement. I found that my thoughts and views could influence more people and receive positive feedback. This made me realize that the dissemination of ideas is not necessarily limited to academia. Stepping outside of academia may lead to a broader and more effective space for information dissemination. This is also one of the reasons I ultimately chose to leave.
Colin: So why did you choose Singapore? Was this decision made after careful consideration?
Hu Yilin: Actually, I didn't think about it for long. I decided on Singapore the first time I came here; initially, I was considering going to Hong Kong.
Hong Kong was the first option because it was more convenient. As someone who tends to stay at home, I am not very willing to face a completely unfamiliar environment, such as dealing with foreigners; I am not very good at language and socializing. I wanted to be in a place with a large Chinese population while also having a certain level of openness. Hong Kong seemed suitable, but I later discovered several issues. First, many people say "going to Hong Kong is not really moving," meaning that going to Hong Kong doesn't count as true immigration. Secondly, the living environment in Hong Kong felt oppressive to me, especially for children. If a child lives in a small space for a long time, their mental health may be affected. In contrast, Singapore offers a much more spacious and comfortable living environment.
Additionally, people in Singapore are very friendly. Although my short experience in Hong Kong was not bad, I generally felt that Hong Kong people seemed a bit "lifeless," as if some waitstaff felt I owed them money. In contrast, people in Singapore are more warm and friendly. Furthermore, the immigration procedures in Singapore are relatively simple; for example, applying for an Employment Pass (EP) is not too difficult. Although obtaining permanent residency is challenging, living here is not difficult.
In summary, my reasons for choosing Singapore are threefold:
First, a friendly Chinese community;
Second, a relatively friendly environment for the cryptocurrency ecosystem;
Third, a friendly environment for the wealthy. The social order is stable, which may not be good for social vitality, but it is very friendly for those who do not need to struggle and are already in the affluent class.
Combining the History of Science with Blockchain Research
Colin: Professor Hu, how is your life settling in now? What are your future plans? Will you continue to engage in academic-related work, or will you lean more towards Web3 and blockchain-related work?
Hu Yilin: There are various aspects to consider. First and foremost, my biggest task is to settle my child, which is the priority. Secondly, under this premise, I pursue freedom; I have now integrated academia and Web3. This integration has been consistent from the very beginning. I previously mentioned that the Bitcoin community is actually a direct product of my doctoral thesis. While writing my thesis, I contemplated the nature of money and why Bitcoin is correct and valuable. Once I figured that out, I entered this field. You could say that from the beginning until now, this has been a process of unity between knowledge and action.
My academic direction is the history of science and technology, particularly leaning towards the history and philosophy of technology. The history of technology is fascinating because it showcases the true forces that drive change in human history. Compared to political history and dynastic changes, the transformations brought about by the history of technology are more profound and intense. Political history often involves cycles of superficial change, while the history of technology represents continuous progress. For instance, the Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution, and the Industrial Revolution all benefited from the impetus of science and technology. From perspective drawing, printing technology, to navigation technology, and then to modern science and industrial systems, these technological innovations have profoundly propelled human history.
The history of technology allows us to witness this magnificent transformation and even enables us to participate in it. This is what makes it so captivating. Science fiction, on the other hand, looks at future technological changes from a different angle, depicting new ways of living and social appearances. The history of technology explores the past, while science fiction imagines the future. However, the real changes are happening in the present moment we are in; we feel as if we are constantly encountering historic moments, witnessing the realization of science fiction, which is a profoundly shocking experience.
This combination gives me a sense of mission, as if I am participating in a new chapter of the epic of human destiny. This experience is exhilarating and reflects a unity of knowledge and action. The significance of studying history is not merely to record the past but to inspire actions and judgments in the present. History does not directly tell you what to do, but it can inspire you through the rendering of emotions and experiences.
For example, when you read a novel or watch a series, if you have seen the earlier parts, you will feel more engaged when watching a new episode. This is because you place the current plot within a grand narrative, leading to a deeper understanding. For me, viewing current events against a larger historical backdrop increases my sense of involvement.
Therefore, what we are doing is not just to make money and support our families, nor is it just for our own small piece of land, but to participate in a greater wave of humanity. Although the significance of this wave is difficult to define precisely, the experience it brings is incredibly strong.
Bitcoin Investment, Holding Strategy, and Cold Wallets
Colin: Professor Hu, let's talk about some practical matters in the crypto world. People are quite concerned about your holding ratio; is the majority still in Bitcoin? Did you continuously increase your holdings from the early days, or do you mainly rely on the Bitcoin you bought early on?
Hu Yilin: Well, this question isn't particularly complicated. I started recording from the moment I entered the space; I remember saying, "I entered the crypto world with a few thousand funds," and this content can be found on my blog. Although I entered the space early, in 2013, I don't have much money now. Many people find it strange that I entered in 2013, have always been a HODLER, and have advocated holding, but why haven't I made a lot? The reason is simple: I was a poor student at that time, with little income and very little capital to invest.
I initially scraped together money from my living expenses to buy Bitcoin, and later my dad criticized me, saying that living expenses are for living, not for investing. After I received a scholarship, I used that scholarship to buy some. So my initial capital was only a few thousand. This was my original capital, and I have been increasing my holdings since then. This year, I am still increasing my holdings because after moving abroad, I sold a house in China and used that money to continue buying Bitcoin.
Colin: With the price so high now, are you still increasing your holdings?
Hu Yilin: Yes, I plan to continue increasing my holdings. In the long run, I believe Bitcoin will always outperform fiat currency.
Colin: I heard Shen Yu mention a "four wallet theory" before, which suggests putting about 60% of mainstream assets, like Bitcoin, in a cold wallet; 20% for flexible operations; 10% for high-risk investments; and 5% to 10% kept as fiat currency. Is your strategy similar to this theory?
Hu Yilin: I don't quite agree with his theory, especially the part about fiat currency. He mentioned using fiat interest to cover living costs, which is nearly impossible for ordinary people to achieve. Only big players like Shen Yu can calculate such scales. Ordinary people simply cannot do it.
My strategy is based on a Bitcoin standard. I use 4% of all my assets for living costs, and these assets do not need to be converted into fiat to earn interest. I directly cover my living costs with Bitcoin's annual growth rate because Bitcoin's growth rate far exceeds the risk-free rate of traditional fiat currency.
Colin: Do you stake Bitcoin for interest, or do you keep it in a cold wallet?
Hu Yilin: If I stake for interest, I would only take out a small amount to play with, like half a coin or one coin. For me, this is just an experiment, and I wouldn't invest a large portion of my assets. I have tried quite a few things, like Merlin and Blue Box, and ultimately lost quite a bit. Of course, these attempts were more for experiencing cutting-edge plays.
Colin: Sometimes you can't help but buy a little when you see a project doing well, right?
Hu Yilin: Indeed, especially during the NFT boom; I couldn't resist and bought some, resulting in significant losses. Although the NFT market has heated up again recently, my assets have only returned from "ankle-deep" to "knee-deep."
Colin: Do you have any recommendations for cold wallets? What wallet do you use?
Hu Yilin: I keep my main assets in the BitPie wallet. BitPie has been around for a long time; the team disbanded early on, but this wallet doesn't require upgrades and is still very functional. I think it is one of the best options among cold wallets. Its model uses an old phone as a cold wallet. Almost everyone has an idle old phone, right?
You just need to install the BitPie wallet on the old phone, then disconnect it from the internet, and disable Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, turning that phone into a cold wallet. Then, install a hot wallet on another new phone and operate through QR code signatures. This method is both simple and secure, and it is very low-cost, requiring no additional purchase of hardware wallets.
Colin: BitPie and BitPai are from the same company, right?
Hu Yilin: Yes, but later BitPai launched a hardware wallet, and the BitPie model was abandoned because it wasn't profitable. I can understand that; after all, this is open-source software with no profit point. But I really like this model.
Additionally, I recommend that everyone memorize their mnemonic phrases. I have memorized several sets of mnemonic phrases, so even if there is a problem with the cold wallet, the assets can be safely recovered.
Comparison of Bitcoin Ecosystem and ETH Ecosystem
Colin: Professor Hu, you previously worked on some NFT projects in the Bitcoin ecosystem, but recently it seems the industry's focus has shifted from the Bitcoin ecosystem to meme coins. Do you think there is still an opportunity for the Bitcoin ecosystem in the future? Or will you also pay attention to other ecosystems, like the hotspots on Solana or Base?
Hu Yilin: I do not reject meme coins; these projects can be fun. Speaking of the Bitcoin ecosystem, I have always been optimistic about it. However, the current problem with the Bitcoin ecosystem is that it has not yet found a particularly good development model and has not established a strong sense of identity.
From the perspective of the entire industry, the Bitcoin ecosystem has its uniqueness, and one reason I was optimistic about it initially was that it could serve as an alternative to the ETH ecosystem. The problem with the ETH ecosystem is its ambiguous positioning: it wants to maintain decentralization and uphold punk spirit, but in many aspects, it has moved towards centralization. It cannot compete with Bitcoin in terms of decentralization, and it cannot match Solana in terms of efficiency and pace.
Solana has a very clear positioning; it is centralized, efficient, and fast-paced. This positioning attracts those who prioritize user experience. If you want a more efficient chain, you choose Solana. In contrast, ETH is somewhat caught in between, failing to please either side.
As for Base, as a corporate chain, it also leans towards centralization, aiming to improve efficiency. While it cannot be said to be completely centralized, it is more centralized than ETH and has taken a clear efficiency-first approach.
The reason I am optimistic about the Bitcoin ecosystem is that it represents the ideal of decentralization. As a believer in decentralization, I think this direction is still correct. However, the current dilemma of the Bitcoin ecosystem is that it is not appealing to either side. On one hand, Bitcoin HODLers do not recognize many new projects in the ecosystem, believing they are essentially just "speculating" and are variations of altcoins. On the other hand, for users who enjoy speculation, the Bitcoin ecosystem is inefficient, slow-paced, and has low traffic, making it far less attractive than the Solana ecosystem.
As Bitcoin HODLers, we are inherently conservative. It is already challenging to allocate 1% or 2% of our assets to participate in these projects, but asking us to go ALL IN or heavily invest is impossible. Because of this conservatism, the Bitcoin ecosystem struggles to attract traditional Bitcoin players and also fails to compete for speculative users who prefer short-term gains.
Despite this, I believe the Bitcoin ecosystem still has opportunities. For example, in the future, it could stop pursuing the "speculation" pace and instead focus on projects with long-term value. NFTs on Bitcoin might be one direction. Because Bitcoin has a stronger sense of "eternity" and "solidarity," it may be more persuasive in the NFT field.
The breakthroughs in the Bitcoin ecosystem may rely on the next generation of NFT products. These products need to break away from pure speculation logic and possess more practical gameplay or value. If these new models can adapt to the Bitcoin ecosystem, I believe it still has a chance to rise again.
Possibilities and Issues of Decentralized Science
Colin: Professor Hu, what are your upcoming exploration plans? Will you continue to focus on the arts, or will you try something new in decentralized science (DeSci) as we discussed earlier?
Hu Yilin: Regarding decentralized science, I must admit that I have self-awareness. I really want to do this, but currently, I do not have enough motivation or energy to truly push this forward. This field has a long way to go and is very challenging. So, if someone is willing to do it, I will fully support them, such as serving as an advisor, consultant, or even endorsing the project. I generally do not easily endorse projects, but if a project is genuinely moving towards decentralized research and aligns with my ideals and standards, I am willing to support it.
Colin: Indeed, some projects start with the goal of issuing tokens, which seem more like money-making schemes.
Hu Yilin: Yes, some projects are indeed too eager for quick success. For example, if they rush to issue tokens from the start, they end up exhausting the project's potential. In reality, the core issue of decentralized research is not funding, but influence and consensus. How to establish consensus in the academic community is key.
Simply relying on funding cannot drive research development. If throwing money could solve problems, China would have a plethora of Nobel Prize winners by now. China does not lack funding; the issue is that research requires time, atmosphere, and cultural accumulation. This accumulation cannot be achieved by just throwing money at it. For instance, Peking University, although it does not have much funding, has a very deep foundation in both the sciences and humanities. This foundation cannot be replicated immediately by throwing money at it, and Tsinghua or other schools cannot reach this height in the short term.
The principles of decentralized science and decentralized finance are the same. Many projects start by issuing tokens, which, to put it bluntly, is just for financing and money-making, but decentralized science does not lack money. The real contradiction in research development is that it requires time to build consensus and a cultural atmosphere, rather than relying on token issuance to attract short-term interests.
However, I am not completely opposed to issuing tokens. It is acceptable to issue tokens sooner or later, but it should not be the starting point of a project; rather, it should be a tool for later development. Decentralized science requires long-term planning and solid advancement, rather than overspending expectations from the very beginning. Only then is it possible to truly promote the development of this field.
Future Plans: The Integration of Technology and Art
Colin: Professor Hu, you might consider finding a few like-minded individuals to create a dedicated podcast. For example, focusing on the field of decentralized science that interests you, producing an episode each week would be great.
Hu Yilin: Thank you for the suggestion! In fact, I do have similar plans. I previously rented a studio in Hong Kong, originally intended for exploring digital art. In the future, we may also develop some programmatic content, which may not necessarily be a podcast; it could be video programs or other types of creations. We have some advanced MR systems, XR systems, and some scene designs related to digital art. Therefore, we might release programs on platforms like WeChat, YouTube, or Bilibili. This program could include both art and technology, and even cover themes like academia and decentralized science.
We have some in-depth thoughts on the integration of technology and art. The split between technology and art is actually part of modernity, gradually emerging after the Industrial Revolution. In earlier history, technology and art were unified, and there wasn't even a distinction in vocabulary. For example, the word "art" could refer to technology, art, or knowledge. This split is a product of the 18th, 19th, and even 20th centuries. We believe that this split may enter a new phase of integration in the future. As the saying goes, "what has been divided will eventually unite," technology and art may once again move towards unity.
This new integration involves not only the combination of art and technology but also the overall direction of philosophy, science, and even academia. For instance, we previously discussed the function of universities: what exactly are universities cultivating? Is the current educational model merely producing "successors" to occupy academic resources? This is actually a significant issue.
Not only do the humanities face a Ponzi scheme, but the sciences and engineering also encounter similar problems. Many professionals being trained now seem to be replaceable by AI. For a long time, universities have regarded human resources as the primary cultivation target, but in the age of AI, these human resources are gradually losing their advantages. The speed of AI's updates far exceeds the learning speed of humans; a human generation may take decades, while AI evolves almost daily.
Therefore, we need to rethink the meaning of learning. Broadly speaking, why do humans need to learn? What should we learn? Narrowly speaking, what is the future of universities? While many universities may disappear during the transformation, some important legacies of human civilization still need to be preserved. So, how should we redefine learning and education? This will be a significant topic.
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。
