Author: Crypto Flight

Reporter’s note

When it comes to thinkers in the Chinese-speaking crypto community and seasoned Bitcoin players, Hu Yilin, who once taught the philosophy of technology at Tsinghua University, is an unavoidable name. I first met Professor Hu at the Bitcoin Summit in Singapore last March, and later we arranged to walk around Geylang on a scorching afternoon, finding a café to chat for two hours. However, both Bitcoin and the broader crypto landscape are evolving at an astonishing pace, and after missing the opportunity to publish that interview, it has remained unpublished.

Later, I learned that it was that very visit to Singapore that solidified Professor Hu's decision to leave his position at Tsinghua University and move his family here. When the news of his relocation to Southeast Asia came in December last year, it sparked quite a discussion within the community. At a historical juncture where the external environment of crypto was undergoing dramatic changes, with opportunities and challenges becoming apparent, my community partner 935 and I decided it was time to fly back to Singapore for another visit. In mid-February, we conducted two in-depth interviews with Professor Hu over six hours, broadening our focus from the then-booming cryptocurrency prices to his life choices in moving to Southeast Asia, discussing the paths for the dispersed Chinese in this new wave of (de)globalization, probing the ideals of Bitcoin standardism, and tracing back to the underlying philosophy of technology. Professor Hu's insights on common issues always feel refreshing. Before the first interview, we invited him to a local Singaporean dish, Bak Kut Teh, and before the second interview, he treated us to a Chinese-style frog porridge. The fusion of Singaporean and Chinese cuisine during our two meals, combined with the intellectual stimulation from our discussions, left us with lasting memories.

More than a month later, the crypto market has changed dramatically, with many narratives collapsing and industry leaders once revered now brought down to earth. However, looking back at the interviews we compiled, Professor Hu's thoughts based on fundamental logic have rekindled our faith.

The Local Rhythm of Singapore

Flytofu: Professor Hu officially moved here last December. What is your current living situation in Singapore?

Hu Yilin: I have already found the rhythm that belongs to Singapore. Every morning, I take my child to kindergarten, relax in the morning, do some work in the afternoon, and in the evening, I pick up my child, have dinner, go to the playground, and then bathe and put her to sleep. Thank goodness she has adapted well. Every day is actually quite leisurely, but now I need to start getting back on track, reopening a reading group. Every Sunday evening, we meet offline to read Heidegger's "Being and Time," which I am quite good at discussing. I will also lead an online reading of Stiegler's "Symbolic Poverty," the first part discussing film and the second part discussing art. The so-called symbolic poverty refers to the proletariat in work, which is not only material poverty but also spiritual poverty. Stiegler's thought is about the proletarianization of the spiritual world in a capitalist society, which is, in a sense, a critique of capitalism.

Flytofu: Why did you choose Singapore over Hong Kong at that time?

Hu Yilin: The lockdown in Shanghai made people feel that the overall uncertainty and insecurity in the domestic environment had increased. Although I remain relatively optimistic about the overall development in the country—I believe we can still get through various crises—after having a child, my perspective on issues has changed. I want to provide my child with a more stable and predictable environment. The only advantage of Singapore is its stability—just like the climate here, which is uniformly hot all year round. This predictability may not be beneficial for innovation, but it is precisely what is needed for raising children: this "boring stability."

I have been to Hong Kong a few times, and the experience of the urban landscape is not very good. Walking on the streets, I feel suffocated by the tall buildings; in Central, turning a corner is still a glass curtain wall, and during the day, you can't even see a complete piece of sky. Will this environment affect a child's growth? Growing up in a cramped space, will their personality also become repressed? Singapore is different; it is overall more open and spacious, more vibrant and full of life. The term "Garden City" is well-deserved, with greenery everywhere, and you can see the horizon from the city center. Even in the busiest places, there are tall trees, lawns, and parks, as well as nature reserves, with greenery planted in the air between buildings. When I was in Hong Kong, I always felt that the waitstaff had a stern face, as if everyone owed them money. Here in Singapore, even if I stutter in English, the staff will actively switch to Mandarin and greet me warmly. Of course, this might just be my good luck; my experiences during my two visits to Singapore were quite pleasant. But perhaps this is fate.

Flytofu: This generation of overseas Chinese can maintain more frequent contact with the domestic scene through Chinese apps or search for guides on Xiaohongshu. Do you think this is an advantage? Will it create a gap with the local environment in Singapore?

Hu Yilin: My partner uses them, but I generally don’t look for guides; I just wander around wherever I go and eat and play casually. In life, there’s no need to deliberately search for things. When I was a child in Shanghai, I also casually looked for things on the streets, and the food courts here in Singapore are quite good. If I had to pick something I find a bit uncomfortable, it’s that people here seem very comfortable. The service attitude in Singapore is very good, but sometimes it feels a bit clumsy. There’s a certain awkwardness, unlike the cleverness that comes from the harsh competition in the domestic environment. There are many customers in the domestic market, and they are picky in various aspects, so the corresponding service is more attentive. For example, home services and renovations here can take several days to schedule. But as long as you integrate into this atmosphere and don’t rush, it’s fine.

Overall, it’s good; the gap itself is a condition for maintaining diversity. Now, there’s both connection and separation; you’re not completely connected with the domestic scene, and there’s a bit of a gap, and the same goes for foreigners. This allows for a relatively unique cultural independence. The technological means are precisely the precondition. When we use WeChat or Xiaohongshu, it’s somewhat like fellow villagers meeting each other. In our generation, when we say "fellow villagers," we refer to shared memories and experiences. For example, when Shanghai people talk about the Waibaidu Bridge, the Oriental Pearl Tower, and life in the alleys, they all know that the Suzhou River used to be very smelly. Now, you grew up using WeChat, and so did I; in a sense, we are new fellow villagers in the internet age. Society is increasingly lacking the conditions for separation. New Shanghainese and new Beijingers live in exactly the same places, and their ways of communication are the same. How do we distinguish our differences? So, walls are not entirely bad; they create a completely independent ecology on the mainland, allowing it to grow relatively independently before competing internationally. We need some restrictive elements to establish regional styles.

Flytofu: What do you think about the trend of Chinese people becoming more mobile around the world? Many say this is an era of the rise of dispersed Chinese.

Hu Yilin: My work with the Chinese DAO is also aimed at reviving Chinese culture beyond the material world, seeking the lost rites in the wild. The culture of mainland China is actually in a state of closure and conservatism. Culture is essentially about fusion; today’s Western culture was once a product of a melting pot, combining Greek, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, and also incorporating Arab, Indian cultures, including various technologies from China, which shaped what we now call Western civilization. Embracing diversity is a very important way to maintain cultural vitality. The revival of Chinese culture today does not refer to a revival of traditional culture but rather a rebirth of traditional culture, not a simple return. This requires an international perspective, first affirming Western culture and then absorbing it; that is the revival. I have previously said that Singapore is an ideal place, where cultural fusion exists while still maintaining the characteristics of Chinese culture. Each beauty is beautiful in its own way; there are all kinds of people, with both Western lifestyles and traditional Chinese lifestyles.

Today’s Chinese are the same; overseas Chinese do not necessarily have to integrate into local society but rather add a color to the racial spectrum in the U.S. without increasing the cultural spectrum. If you do not bring more diverse cultures into the U.S., then you are not contributing to America. True diversity, inclusivity, and uniqueness should be cultural, not the diversity of humans as animals.

Chinese DAO White Paper 3.0 Q&A

A Beginning and Continuation of Philosophy

Flytofu: Professor Hu should write a reader on Heidegger or something similar. I’ve heard many people say that Singapore is a cultural desert. How receptive are the audiences here to such a profound philosophical classic as "Being and Time"?

Hu Yilin: A reader doesn’t have much significance; philosophical books should be read in their original form. A reader is like giving you chewed gum; it has no flavor. Reading philosophy is enjoyable in the process of chewing it yourself. It’s very fulfilling to understand a book that seems quite profound, and this will also give you the courage to enter philosophy. Many people are daunted, thinking philosophical books are too deep, so they pursue introductory books, which completely misses the thinking process, similar to only eating the pulp of sugarcane. I believe this is putting the cart before the horse. The conclusions of philosophical books are the most tedious parts of the entire book. For me, the first book that truly enlightened me in philosophy was Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason." Once you understand it, you will know why it is so obscure; after diving in, you finally grasp what it truly concerns.

The participants in my reading group are not primarily local Singaporeans; they are mostly international students or those who have come from China to explore. Moreover, these philosophical books are actually for beginners; they do not require much prior knowledge. Classic philosophical texts start from the most basic human experiences to answer your own questions. Anyone who has existential confusion, life experiences, or life experiences should be able to enter into philosophical thought. Heidegger's "Being and Time" is relatively pure, directly discussing the so-called "being" problem, which makes it easier for beginners to engage.

The difficulty lies first in having to discard some of your ingrained thought patterns. Modern people have been rationalized and reshaped by technology or the environment, and they unconsciously think in a tool-oriented and conditioned manner. This kind of thinking pattern has a strong directionality, saying "you should be free," "you should be authentic," which many people cannot understand because their thinking mode is linear; they must see and touch to comprehend. But actually, the most important things in life, such as life and death, are precisely non-linear. You can point to a dying person and say this is death, but that is not the same as the death you fear—external objectified death is different from the death you truly face. Your life experience—such as the inner feeling of being alive—is more intimate and direct than external objects. Because the usual discourse system revolves around external things, it becomes difficult to switch to introspective thinking, leading to a sense of obscurity.

The second difficulty is linguistic. To help readers break out of their thought patterns, philosophers must play a new language game. Traditional vocabulary can trap you in established thinking, so new expressions must be invented to provide you with new tools. When smartphones first came out, it was hard to get started, but once you got used to them, you found them more useful. The new linguistic tools of philosophy are similar.

Flytofu: I previously thought Professor Hu focused on the philosophy of science, but it seems you have a broad interest and research in philosophy as a whole.

Hu Yilin: I have always believed that philosophy should not be divided into branches, nor should it be. The issues philosophy faces—such as the problems of life and death, existence—your existence is always "one." Because we are a whole, philosophy is about "knowing yourself," and "yourself" cannot be disassembled into assembly line parts: the first step produces wheels, the second produces frames, the third produces steering wheels, the fourth assembles engines, and the fifth installs seats… finally assembling into a car. But humans are not like that—when you say you want to reflect on the technological issues in society, or political issues, you might objectify and categorize them, as if you could have one group study technological issues, another group study political issues, and yet another group study ethical issues… as if in the end, you could piece together a complete philosophy. But the ultimate product of philosophy is not an assembled product; it is you. Do you think you can piece yourself together?

Technology and politics exist because each of us carries these elements. To understand yourself, you must ask: What kind of person am I? Where do my thought patterns come from? What is my state and way of life? These questions inevitably touch upon the era you are in—are we in the Stone Age, the Bronze Age, the Industrial Age, the Electrical Age, or the Information Age? Technology itself is part of what defines us; it is an environment that cannot be disassembled, rather than a collection of parts. Other fields like ethics and aesthetics ultimately converge on the unified personality of "yourself." You do not feel like you are fragmented. Philosophy of technology, political philosophy, social issues, philosophy of art, philosophy of language… ultimately all flow into your "one."

What philosophy pursues is this unity. Its object is always the singular question of "being as being." "Philosophy of technology" is merely an external academic label. In the past, I had to find a position within the academic industrial system to write papers, apply for titles, and seek funding, much like occupying a spot on an assembly line, thus I labeled myself as "history of science and philosophy of technology." But as a free person, I have no label; I face only the most general philosophical questions.

Flytofu: It seems we are back to the initial question: why did you choose to give up the enviable position at Tsinghua, which many see as a brave leap? Is it in pursuit of a more complete and coherent life?

Hu Yilin: First of all, this is a rather personal life choice, without grand significance. In the past, I always emphasized the unity of knowledge and action; now it is also a form of coherence. I currently do not have many material needs; at my current level of desire, I can be worry-free about my livelihood. So it becomes a question of what kind of work you want to do when you do not have to consider making a living.

In the age of AI, this is a very important question. If the world is as optimistic thinkers imagine, where AI gradually replaces human labor, helping to alleviate the burdens of livelihood and elevating productivity to a level where everyone can be freed from heavy labor, then the next question is: what will people do? Will they become like pigs, lying there waiting to be fed, muddling through life, or will they pursue some career and choose their own way of life? When not considering making money, the position at Tsinghua is not that helpful to me; it is just a title. Having this title seems to earn me more respect from others, but if people only respect me based on my title, then I do not deserve their respect—this is also a form of selection. Without a title, the exchanges that need to be done can still be done; I can still hold reading groups and teach. I plan to start online courses, gradually re-recording the classes I taught at Tsinghua.

Flytofu: Did Professor Wu Guosheng try to persuade you to stay when you decided to leave Tsinghua?

Hu Yilin: Professor Wu did not try to persuade me. His philosophy has always respected our freedom, treating students as individuals, never viewing them as tools for teachers. Other teachers assign you topics and tasks, asking you to do this or that for them, but Professor Wu does not do that at all; he has never co-authored an article with students; we all write our own. I told him about my decision, and he did not try to persuade me because he believed I had already thought it through, so he respected that. Of course, he was also worried about who would take over the philosophy of technology after I left.

935: I want to know at what point you began to combine the things you truly wanted to accomplish with the philosophy of science and technology?

Hu Yilin: There are several key points. One is during high school. I was in a national science class, and as long as you entered high school, you had the qualification for guaranteed admission. So by the first year, I knew I wouldn’t have to take the college entrance exam, which made my high school life a bit aimless, but it allowed me to develop many extracurricular interests. At that time, the most influential work for me was the "First Cause Series," such as "A Brief History of Time," and I also read Kip Thorne's thicker "Black Holes and Time Warps," along with various popular science books on quantum mechanics. The more I read these books, the more my interest shifted to those big questions, like the ontological question—what is science? At that time, I was young and fearless, writing many philosophical essays and even calling them "papers." This kind of "not focusing on my studies" indeed affected my competition results. Initially, I insisted on applying to the mathematics or physics department, but the teachers said my competition level did not meet the requirements for the physics department. They then suggested the philosophy department. I thought about it, and the philosophy department seemed like a way out, so I began to shift towards the humanities and accidentally ended up in the philosophy department at Peking University. This was the first turning point.

The two stages that truly made me feel the charm of philosophy were first attending classes by Chinese philosophy teachers, like Yang Lihua and Zhang Xianglong, who were like living contemporary Confucian scholars, exuding a quality that seemed to come from ancient texts. Although I completely disagreed with their views—I am fundamentally a more Westernized liberal—their charm lies in the firmness of their character. You can feel that they genuinely believe in what they are saying and can indeed justify themselves. They did not "lead me astray"; I still lean towards liberalism, but I began to understand sympathy for Confucianism. Many people go through life without ever encountering someone they "disagree with but respect." These classes taught me that differences in thought can be precious. What the now-stigmatized "public intellectuals" should do is exactly this: to express unique insights rather than follow the crowd. This made me truly feel the value of the scholar's identity.

Another important turning point was reading Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason." The teachers at school were all highly respected, but compared to the top philosophers in history, there was still a gap. Kant made me experience for the first time how deep human thought can reach—reading him felt like when Roger in "One Piece" says, "I put all my treasures there," he is telling you: "The Grand Line is right there; go find it!" The philosophical treasures of philosophers cannot directly become your answers, but they prove that it is possible to achieve the highest self-understanding in life. He demonstrated the possibility of such complete thought, even if I do not fully agree with his system. Heidegger serves as a transitional phase; I respected the previous teachers but did not agree with them, while Heidegger's ideas resonated more with me, allowing me to continue thinking within his framework, thus finding my own philosophical style.

Later, during my graduate studies, I was writing a doctoral thesis on media philosophy when I happened to see news about the crash of Bitcoin, which led me to want to use media philosophy to understand what money really is. The mainstream view criticized virtual currencies for lacking physical guarantees and endorsements. But money itself is a virtual intermediary; the transactions carried by intermediaries are what is real. I believe this is the true meaning of money. Although Bitcoin is a virtual, non-physical currency, when viewed as a medium of exchange, it is completely real. In a sense, Bitcoin is more certain than the dollar. At that time, I considered a fundamental question: What is virtual currency? The dollar is the virtual currency because the total value of fiat currency cannot be clearly defined; it is created through the money multiplier, layer by layer. The Federal Reserve can print money whenever it needs it, and the money that is issued can evaporate at any time, like a dream or an illusion. From this perspective, the dollar is indeed virtual, right? The Federal Reserve can change the interest rate by a decimal point, and just by adding a digit, the total amount of dollars in the market will change; this is the virtual dream bubble, right?

This line of thought became the starting point for my in-depth research on Bitcoin and blockchain. Later, I gradually combined the cryptographic movement with critiques of modernity—issues like the alienation of individuals in modern society and the dilemma of technological domination can all find responses in cryptographic technology. This became the main thread of my subsequent research.

Another turning point was when I was looking for a job after my postdoctoral fellowship. I was preparing to teach at Shanghai Normal University when my advisor, Professor Wu Guosheng, moved from Peking University to Tsinghua, and he directly called me, leading to my serendipitous entry into the Department of History of Science at Tsinghua. Although I nominally transitioned to the field of the history of science and technology, I was essentially continuing with the philosophy of technology. In fact, studying the history of technology is closely related to Heidegger's philosophy; Heidegger emphasizes the "actuality" of humans, and to know oneself, one must return to the historical context. As he said: humans are not abstract beings suspended in a vacuum but are rooted in specific historical soil. Therefore, studying the history of technology brings me closer to the essence of philosophy: to understand technology, you must first understand how it is generated in history.

The Politicization of Cryptographic Reality

935: Speaking of technology in history, let's talk about cryptography. If we shift our focus to the early days of technology, the 70s and 80s when civilian cryptography was born and began to develop, it was actually a very pragmatic and purely technical matter. But did it become politicized at some stage?

Hu Yilin: This is not the politicization of technology but rather the politicization of the real world, beginning with digital currencies—not the digital currencies envisioned by cryptographers, but rather the digitalization of money through platforms like Alipay, digital banks, and electronic credit cards. In the 1990s, stock exchanges were not yet digital; everyone had to watch the market. The process of digitizing trading accelerated towards the end of the 90s, and what was originally a trend of concern became a reality. In the 80s, it was indeed not a political movement; it existed only as ideals and concerns, foreseeing that with the development of information technology, people's privacy might be stripped away, necessitating preparations to ensure that information technology could accommodate personal privacy. In a future digital society, if one wants to maintain the protection of personal privacy, they should be able to use prepared tools, which can be said to serve political purposes in a sense.

935: At this stage, was it more about solving a technical problem?

Hu Yilin: The desire to solve technical problems arises from political ideals. If one believes that society should be under comprehensive surveillance, guaranteed by the state and centralized oversight, they would not feel the need to solve technical problems. This is a political attitude. Later, when political ideals fell through, the political direction of the real world turned against them, but their ideals remained unchanged: they still sought decentralized, free, and private transactions, thus their ideals transformed into political demands in reality.

When mentioning "comprehensive surveillance," the concept of the "Panopticon" is often brought up. Originally designed by Bentham, the concept was later referenced by electronic currency pioneer David Chaum when explaining the importance of electronic currency to electronic society, using the Panopticon metaphor.

Bentham's design from 1791

Photo of an old prison in France adhering to the Panopticon concept

935: But in this process, it seems there were some sudden turning points that caused their political attitudes to shift dramatically. In the 60s and 70s, the early cryptographers studying asymmetric encryption were more pragmatic engineers, focusing on how to commercialize cryptography for civilian use. By the late 80s, civilian cryptography was elevated to the height of defending freedom of speech, even evolving into a strong resistance against any centralized collective.

Hu Yilin: The entire history of the internet has always been politicized. The ARPANET was created against the backdrop of the Cold War, with state-supported research and development aimed at countering the Soviet Union. However, the early creators of the internet were precisely liberals; they took military funding but opposed control, emphasizing the free flow of information. They conceptually viewed themselves as capitalists rather than socialists, as technological romantics rather than authoritarian controllers. Therefore, the technological environment must be decentralized and based on knowledge sharing.

Later, Bill Gates stepped forward and said that programmers should charge for their programs, which violated the entire hacker culture of that time. It was quite brave to say this back then, as the mainstream emphasized that information should be free, open, and shared, and should not be monopolized. A large number of developers, engineers, and participants opposed Bill Gates. Programs were not to be treated as personal property to be sold but as shared knowledge for humanity, which left early internet hackers in shock. Why should information be considered private property? From the very beginning, the internet has been in constant conflict. The popularization of the TCP/IP protocol standard was also reliant on the open-source movement. At that time, there were other competing protocols proposed by different entities, mostly driven by companies, such as the British protocol by the postal company, the French one by a state-supported institution, and the Soviet one by central control, while the TCP/IP protocol was open. Because it was directly open-sourced, everyone could use it, which made it mainstream. The concept of ARPANET came from a memorandum written by a former president of a research institute about an interstellar network, aiming to transmit information through computers to achieve a shared, transnational society. The ideal was there from the start: the internet has no borders, no center, and is a space where everyone equally enjoys knowledge. The ideological currents in the history of the internet are undoubtedly political ideals.

935: In the cryptographic movement, the interaction between technological structure and human desires has formed the current technological imagination. I believe that the current information cryptography technology is dependent on the entire information technology, just as the cypherpunk movement is also dependent on the internet culture movement. The centralized computers of the early Cold War period were viewed negatively, symbolizing large bureaucratic repression of individuality. This was precisely what the counterculture sought to oppose. Later, microprocessors made personal computers possible, and suddenly computers became tools that empowered individuals, advocating for personal rights and freedoms.

The structure of the internet also has duality. On one hand, it can be idealized as a flattened, decentralized carrier with equal nodes; on the other hand, a distributed network structure is also the best carrier for power infiltration, potentially becoming the "Panopticon" of infiltrating power. So does the technological architecture itself inevitably lead to specific forms of power?

Network structures facilitate peer-to-peer interactions while also enabling central power control.

Hu Yilin: On one hand, technology is not neutral; on the other hand, people may choose different paths to determine the direction of technological development. If the internet had developed in the Soviet Union instead of the United States, it might have become a central nervous system, a real-time control system for better implementing a planned economy. We are fortunate that the internet was initially driven by relatively free individuals.

935: Just like the cyber-socialism that Allende wanted to implement in Chile. So the network itself has a dual structure; it can be highly centralized or a symbol of great freedom, depending on the will of the people choosing it and the culture it fosters.

Hu Yilin: Technology has different possibilities. The earliest products of computers appeared to be large, monopolistic, and difficult to personalize and decentralize, but their technological connotation still tends toward freedom. Turing's fundamental contribution was the idea of universal computation. A computer is an abstract simulation of human calculation; how humans calculate is how computers calculate. Moreover, the computation of computers can be standardized and defined; all Turing machines are the same, differing only in computing power, but in principle, they perform the same tasks. From this perspective, machines designed for computation have no secrets. The secrets of the atomic bomb are closed, but the early papers by Turing, von Neumann, and Wiener were all public. From the beginning, there was an emphasis on not monopolizing; those who had the conditions could build first, and others with conditions could also build at any time. The technology itself has a tendency toward decentralization. Even as a massive entity, computers still exhibit tendencies toward decentralization and democratization.

Before the 1950s, many computers were designed for specialized tasks. If computers had continued to develop in this direction, the future might have seen the U.S. government owning a computer with technical parameters kept secret, where others could only connect their terminals to the services provided by the U.S. government. But they could not build their own computers. Fortunately, American culture itself has a liberal bias; it cannot be said that the early days were necessarily liberal, but the entire information technology and liberalism complement and support each other.

The New Frontier of Cryptography: The Diversity of Blockchain

935: Looking solely at the history of information technology development, one can feel that the spirit of open competition in the market has indeed allowed us to enjoy the benefits of technology under liberalism. However, from the perspective of pure commodity economics, it also seems that the world chosen by pure neoliberalism has distorted many aspects of our lives. For example, although we are currently in a historically prosperous period of technology and economy, we are also in a relatively spiritually and culturally barren time. So how do we understand the relationship between liberalism and modernity?

Hu Yilin: The cultural desertification, flattening, and superficiality are not the fault of liberalism; they are issues of modernity as a whole. Both liberalism and authoritarianism can lead to this problem. Now, Western liberalism is essentially equated with the right, and the right is equated with conservatism. Conservatism emphasizes the need to protect traditional culture. Liberalism does not necessarily wish for cultural flattening, atomization, or universality. The emergence of cultural flattening indicates that liberalism is still insufficient because not only should the market be free, but thought must also be free. Both freedom of thought and freedom of the market believe that the market should be rich and diverse. The premise of the market's existence is that we have different things to circulate; otherwise, there is no possibility of trading. Cultural diversity and the independence of local markets are part of the ideals of liberals; it is just a matter of how we combat the trend of flattening. Liberalism should encompass multiple dimensions of the market.

935: So the current phenomenon of flattening is not because we are too market-oriented, but because we are not market-oriented enough? But the market itself may only carry a single dimension, such as maximizing profit and efficiency, and this logic leads to the occurrence of flattening.

Hu Yilin: The market can be distinguished in narrow and broad senses. The narrow market is the commodity market anchored by currency. In a broader sense, there are other markets, such as the market of ideas and the market of beliefs. Classical Western liberalism emphasizes not the market but freedom of speech, thought, and belief, which actually leads to cultural diversity, like the Protestant movement breaking the single narrative, allowing everyone to believe in their own god, so churches can have different beliefs and compete in the entire belief market. The free flow of goods is just one part of these freedoms.

The problem of convergence mainly lies in the Matthew effect of capitalism. The pursuit of capital appreciation leads to the strong getting stronger; the more concentrated production is, the higher the efficiency, and the higher the efficiency, the faster the scale can expand, concentrating more resources. In the end, it can only produce the same thing through standardized production. We need to find ways to reshape a diversified style under the larger trend, which is also what I want to do regarding why blockchain can become a form of diversity.

935: When we find ourselves in this moment, any new order and idea cannot escape the current state of the world. For technology to have real significance at this time, it must also face current issues. Earlier, we discussed that it was not the original intentions of the liberals that caused the current problems; the issues may stem from the structure of the technology itself. A fully free atmosphere should have fostered diversity, but at least from the perspective of the commodity market, we have fallen into a very singular value situation, which seems to have determined a singular culture. Can blockchain find a way to break this structural problem in technology?

Hu Yilin: It cannot directly break it, but there are still several layers of solutions that can counter it.

The first layer is shifting from overdrawn to saving, which is beneficial for cultural diversity. Culture requires depth and accumulation to foster a certain diversity; rapidly iterating things cannot form diversity. If market competition is about who can overdraw more, without looking at the past and accumulation, only focusing on storytelling ability, it remains an overdrawn-oriented market. In contrast, if it is a savings-oriented market, the size of the capital determines what can be done; relying solely on new ideas makes it harder to borrow money, and one must find people with experience to invest, which cannot be quickly crushed.

Currently, the market is homogenized, which in some sense is caused by the financing model. Once a new model is proven, there is an endless stream of investment, and massive financing leads to rapid expansion, so quickly that competitors cannot react before it has already occupied a dominant market position. If financing is not so fast, although it may slow down the overall pace of progress in the world, on the other hand, it will be more diversified; you must expand step by step, slowly, which allows others to catch up. Of course, there still needs to be patent protection; if others want to catch up, they must differentiate and cannot completely copy. In this model, the speed at which the market is occupied is not so fast, forming a fragmented and diversified market. In the past, everyone thought that slow expansion was a crime; if it could expand so quickly, why not allow it? Isn't that holding back the pace of human progress? But if we do not overdraw and proceed step by step, the level of human progress does not change, and the overdrawn money will eventually have to be repaid.

The second layer is to create diversity through a multi-token system in blockchain. The diversity of the world was originally maintained through national borders; the differences between nations and ethnicities are not easy to overcome, and this sense of boundaries is the traditional world's way of creating barriers. Now, many barriers in the internet world have been broken; in the Web 2.0 era, internet culture has turned into large public social platforms, which also exhibit the Matthew effect, such as internet celebrities. There are no terrains, no borders, and even language barriers have diminished because it is predominantly English. The things that could form barriers and diverse boundaries in the traditional world have disappeared on the internet, thus transforming into this flattened global village.

How can we artificially create a sense of barrier in the global village? One way is to promote a relatively decentralized model; currently, social media platforms are driven by capital, leading to rapid expansion, making it difficult to have our own enclaves. BBS forums still have some locality, but they are gradually dissolving, as the economic model of traditional platforms cannot support them. This is also related to regulation; forums in China cannot survive, while in the U.S., some might still exist. Furthermore, there is the financial model; in the flow economy driven by large capital, the internet celebrity economy seems to favor graduate students less than elementary school students because of their stronger purchasing power and greater susceptibility to being misled, leading to higher click rates on advertisements, which translates to better traffic. Platforms created using this business model will also tend toward flattening; it is not just the flow of information that is flattened, but also the level of people. To attract more traffic, one must cater to the majority rather than a specific small group.

935: Is this forced expansion a result of the inherent inertia of technology itself? To maintain the operation costs of large machines and factories, machines must run day and night, and people need to work around the clock. The result of this constant operation is mass production, which necessitates mass consumption and the continuous opening of new markets. After acquiring machines and technology, are we also trapped in the inertia brought by technology?

Hu Yilin: This is the ideology of efficiency supremacy, where everything is aimed at capital appreciation, improving efficiency, and enhancing productivity as the primary goal of all production activities. Why do we say that blockchain offers a possibility? Conceptually, the definition of Web3 is still unclear, but at its most basic level, it provides a permissionless, decentralized identity system that individuals can fully control. The most intuitive experience is wallet login; there is no need to register an ID account—just use a wallet to generate your identity, and you can control it in a decentralized manner. It helps us return to the individual rather than thinking about issues centered around social efficiency. The essence of the assembly line is that people do not move; they must follow the rhythm of the machines. People become more like machines, and machines become more like people, with machines operating automatically while humans perform mechanized tasks, abstracting the human element. Workers next to machines are not complete individuals; they are merely hands that twist screws, providers of labor. On internet platforms, they are also not complete individuals; they are providers of click rates, just like in factories. People do not participate in this market as complete individuals but as interchangeable outputs.

Therefore, the most important thing is that we must reclaim the right to define ourselves. Why should I twist screws in a factory? I always need to find work, and finding work will lead to this problem. To find work, one must obey the larger order; otherwise, what can be done? If this job is irreplaceable and highly personalized, no one will hire you because recruitment machines cannot be designed according to your personality; they must be generic. You say you are unique, but it is impossible to customize an assembly line for you; once you leave work, the assembly line shuts down. How can one break free? The first is that production on the internet provides new models, such as digital nomads, who in some sense have escaped traditional boundaries. In traditional models, everyone has a predetermined position; now individuals have greater control, which seems to revert to gig work, but it is a return to humanity. Even if it is still relatively mechanized on a micro level, you maintain a relatively complete independence.

Digital nomads represent a model; blockchain cannot be said to be completely bound to it, but it strongly supports it—first, it can help you receive payments across borders, breaking through traditional geographical limitations. Furthermore, the personal identity in Web3 can be self-controlled. One reason traditional social media has a monopolistic position is that personal identities are dependent on it, and all accumulations are controlled by others. Personal accumulation is controlled by the platform, which prefers to refresh it constantly; this is a contradiction that negates your individuality, treating you as a source of traffic to be continuously extracted. The question is how to reclaim that accumulation from the platform. Social platforms still need to exist; they should be responsible for providing spaces for immediate and current communication. However, after online communication, our accumulations should be controllable by ourselves. Web3 has the potential to provide such technical conditions, where the platform only offers a space for immediate communication and a large flow of information, and the attention on the platform is not an account but my identity on the blockchain. Even if you leave Twitter, the connection between you and me is not severed.

935: It means that the ownership of your electronic relationships is with you.

Hu Yilin: People can decide their relationships with each other, rather than having the platform decide. When the platform bans your account, it not only deprives the banned user but also the followers, as the platform cuts off the connection. Why do we rarely use niche platforms? Because niche platforms may not thrive and could shut down at any time. Many early BBS contents are no longer accessible unless you move them yourself. Interpersonal relationships are also difficult to migrate; if you can only hang yourself on one tree, you will still choose to hang yourself on a large platform. Currently, individuals are fragmented, while platforms are unified. We need to reconstruct the relationships of online social networks, forcing changes in the environment of large platforms so that diverse small platforms also have space to survive.

The third is the establishment of network nations. Traditional nations first have geographical separations and can rely on tariffs. Hong Kong and Macau do not have strong geographical differences, but through the customs system, they can promote independence in the market. Why do small countries also need their own currency? Because of the requirement for economic independence. Having their own currency allows them to avoid being coerced by others. This was previously impossible, but with blockchain, it becomes possible. Blockchain forms small economic entities, where each person issues a token, creating a relatively autonomous economic system that I can control. The influencer economy and fan economy have their own economic logic. There is always a need to use an efficiency model to calculate gains and losses. If we calculate using efficiency supremacy and instrumentalism, we will inevitably converge; whatever is more efficient will prevail, leading to a loss of diversity. The downside of platform economics is that it is entirely dependent on large platforms; 80% of the rankings you give to influencers must go to the platform, and it is opaque. Every year, talent shows have controversies about whether the production teams are manipulating the results or if there is a script, and because of the lack of transparency, they are suspected. But blockchain solves this problem; a small group of people can organize not according to efficiency logic but based on emotions or enthusiasm, independent of large platforms, creating an economic system that allows us to play as we wish, and it is also open and transparent, with its own community culture.

935: The return to community and social groups seems to be a consensus in recent years, with more and more people emphasizing returning to small communities, to local and nearby areas, forming small circles organized by familiar or ideologically similar people to attempt something akin to a gift economy, also returning to a life with more everyday human connections within this collective.

Hu Yilin: This trend of community is not a trend of blockchain; it should be said that this trend already exists. In the universalization movement, people still have the desire to pursue uniqueness and individuality. This is a backlash, and blockchain can solidify it, at least extending this trend in the electronic world.

935: Treating encryption as one of the solutions to break the market logic, what stage has this idea developed to now? Are there mature conditions for implementation?

Hu Yilin: I often use the New World as a metaphor to explain. The first stage is the emergence of a new digital world, roughly in the 1980s and 1990s, with the advent of the internet, where humanity quietly shapes an independent digital world. The second stage is the birth of blockchain, where Satoshi Nakamoto discovered the reality of the New World, realizing it is real wealth, no longer a fantastical concept or story, but a place with genuine independent wealth. After that comes the gold rush, where everyone rushes to the New World to mine resources and then returns to the Old World to survive. The rich want to return to the Old World to consume, but they will also mine in the New World, enjoying the wild, lawless thrill because the New World lacks order, making it a great place for speculators.

Now that the second stage has passed, we are in the third stage—the colonial stage. One line is that people from the Old World send managers over, while the other line is that libertarians from the New World gradually take root there, becoming dissatisfied with the old order and wanting to establish a new order. At this point, the New World is no longer in a state of complete anarchy. Both lines are about establishing a new order, but there is a struggle: one wants to extend the old order, while the other wants to overthrow the old order and establish a new one. We are currently in such a period, where the struggle has just begun to become evident. Some people hope to apply the old model to the blockchain world, while others want to carve their own path in the blockchain world. The next stage will be the independence movement. The New World wants to break free from the control of the Old World and declare its independence. We are in a phase between the gold rush and the declaration of independence, in an era where various orders are still in conflict and struggle.

Rather than saying it is rich in resources, it is more accurate to say that the New World is a no-man's land that attracts many. Because it is unclaimed, it can be re-enclosed and a new order established. The internet is also a no-man's land; it originally had no borders. Thus, there are also two trends: one is to regulate it, asserting that the internet has borders, with more and more online stores needing to undergo IP reviews. For us, as admirers of the old internet hacker culture, this is simply unacceptable. But this is also a way to manage the internet using traditional tariff models. The other trend, represented by blockchain, aims to solidify the freedom of the internet. When regulators say there should be tariffs, I can use native internet currencies for transactions instead of fiat currency. Blockchain reinforces the no-man's land attribute of the internet.

935: Has there been a change in the main drivers of technological development? It seems that liberalism still predominates.

Hu Yilin: Of course, there has been a change, as more and more people are pouring in. It is indeed dominated by liberalism, but this is a retrospective view; because liberalism ultimately succeeded, looking back, it seems to be primarily liberalism. There is a phenomenon in biology called genetic drift, where in a relatively large ecological community, the direction of genetic variation is random and relatively stable. Only the most adapted to the environment prevail. If the new environment is relatively isolated and independent, and only a small group enters the new environment, the variations produced may not be more competitive or mainstream in the larger environmental community. However, if they enter the new environment relatively early or occupy some advantage, they will successfully reproduce in the entire new environment, amplifying specific genetic information.

We think of America as a Puritan country, and the Mayflower can be seen as a symbol of the Puritan vessel. However, the dominance of Puritan culture across the American continent is not solely due to the number of people who went there; even on the Mayflower, a significant portion of the people were not Puritans, not to mention that many others entered America before and after this time. So it may just be a coincidence that drives cultural development, and later this advantage is amplified and gradually solidified. Liberals may have entered at a relatively favorable juncture; the growth of Bitcoin has largely been driven by liberals. Its underlying structure is relatively aligned with the liberal imagination, which is an advantage, but it cannot be a decisive factor forever.

The final ideology will definitely be a new fusion. Just as America, although dominated by Puritans, ultimately is not a Puritan culture but an independent, secular American culture that is a mixture. Ultimately, the ideals of blockchain will not be purely Austrian or liberal or anarchist. They are just early influences that, by being first movers, can maintain inertia, solidifying this direction, but in the end, there will still be compromise and fusion.

Rectifying the Era of Value Storage Retreat

935: I have read your early articles on Bitcoin and agree that currency is instrumental and also realist. From an instrumental perspective, any form and medium that meets certain requirements can serve as a means of circulation (currency); from a realist perspective, I also agree that Bitcoin, as a deflationary currency with limited supply, has a value storage function.

I want to revisit what problems Satoshi Nakamoto's proposal essentially solved in the earliest Bitcoin white paper. Historically, looking back to the time when the white paper was published, Satoshi satirized the continuous devaluation of fiat currency in the existing financial environment and the repeated financial crises. Among these two problems, the issue of currency devaluation is relatively easy to solve; creating a deflationary currency like Bitcoin can address it. However, according to Marx's viewpoint, the root cause lies in the structural contradictions of production and consumption. The periodic economic crises may not be significantly related to what kind of currency is used.

So even if we replace the means of circulation with Bitcoin, can we still not prevent the recurrence of economic crises?

Hu Yilin: You say that financial crises are unrelated to currency, which is precisely what traditional fiat currency supporters disagree with. Keynesianism was born out of economic crises and is respected as a means to solve economic crises. Why do Keynesians regard solving financial crises as one of the merits of fiat currency? Because fiat currency can be regulated. During deflation, liquidity can be injected, and during inflation, it can be tightened. The purpose of monetary policy is to regulate the market, making it tend toward stability, avoiding rapid birth and death. Free market advocates believe that in the long run, the market will tend toward balance and that regulation is unnecessary. But how many years will it take for the market to spontaneously tend toward balance? It could be a long time. One of Keynes's responses is that if we wait for the market to rebalance after we die, it will be too late; we need to quickly pull it back when the market is unbalanced. Therefore, to acknowledge the significance of fiat currency, one must recognize that currency is meaningful for regulating the economy. Monetary policy can influence economic cycles; this is the theory of fiat currency, not the theory of Bitcoin.

In a certain sense, what Bitcoin emphasizes, or what we currency libertarians emphasize, is precisely that financial crises are unrelated to currency. But Bitcoin is about returning to simplicity; its role is to rectify the chaos. Why does the Federal Reserve always look at unemployment rates and price indices before making adjustments? Policies allow currency to overly intervene in the economy and the entire free market, making the economy unhealthy. Now, by reverting to a more fundamental and original form of currency, we aim to detoxify and heal. Of course, this also changes the economic market, but because the market has already been poisoned, the process of detoxification is indeed an intervention in the market. However, it is not about becoming a new form of regulation after detoxification, but rather about allowing the market to decouple from currency.

935: So Bitcoin does not intend to join financial regulation as a new currency identity, but rather hopes to become a more effective store of value?

Hu Yilin: This statement is not complete. Bitcoin respects the market. Currency is a commodity, and all commodities are an inherent part of the market. Its impact on the market is the same as that of pork, real estate, or any other commodity. OPEC controls oil production to regulate the market and can even manipulate the United States or serve as a bargaining chip. However, currency is a very special commodity because it is the most neutral commodity, which is why it can serve as money. OPEC can essentially control oil production, so while oil can have monetary attributes and serve as a medium, it is not suitable as a base currency. Gold is slightly better; it is distributed across the world, and gold produced in China is the same as gold produced in the United States—there is no way to distinguish them, and they cannot be influenced by any particular industry or institutional sector. Now, fiat currency resembles a monopolized commodity rather than a universal neutral currency. To put it comprehensively, Bitcoin returns not only as part of the entire commodity market but also as the most neutral and neutral commodity in circulation. It qualifies to become a better currency.

935: You mentioned that our current system is a model of a continuously growing population and depreciating currency. As a currency that emphasizes value storage, can Bitcoin lead us into a model of declining population and appreciating currency? How does this work?

Hu Yilin: The fiat currency model is not suitable for a future scenario of declining population, but that does not mean that the era of population growth must follow the fiat currency model. An era of population growth should also have a culture of value storage. Chinese people should understand this best; they like to save money, live frugally their whole lives, for the sake of their children having a better life or to prepare for old age, so they can enjoy the hard-earned money saved from their youth. What distinguishes humans from other animals is the concept of the future; we can know to save for emergencies and prepare for rainy days. There must always be something to store value, whether it is not currency but food—"store grain widely, and you can rule slowly"; or hoarding gold, like a miser saving gold; or storing some bows and arrows, preparing for rebellion or emergencies. After entering the industrial age, many commodities that could originally store value no longer have that function. Originally, intellectuals could pass down a book as a family treasure, which could be considered wealth. With the development of modernity, the cost of preserving these items is no longer worth it compared to buying new ones, and it seems that only real estate remains, but it is still difficult to store value through a relatively unmonopolized, unregulated, and unexpropriated free commodity.

This is a problem in modern society. So the larger context is that human nature requires value storage, but suitable means of storage cannot be found. What should be used at this time? One way is to financialize the things that store value, such as real estate, stocks, and securities, which seem to be transferable; another way is to use gold and currency as means of storing value. So it is not a new model but a return. Bitcoin calls back the human nature of value storage.

Moreover, previously, technological development was too rapid, and the entire world was under the optimistic sentiment of progressivism, believing that the world would only get better in the future. The things saved for future generations might later be looked down upon. Now, the faith or illusion of progressivism is beginning to waver. The future will not necessarily get better; the wealth gap is widening, and various crises are emerging one after another. The feeling in the post-pandemic era is just like that. During the pandemic, many wealthy families were severely impacted; they were not short of money but unprepared. They used to think that having money meant they could buy bread or rice at any time, with delivery the next day. In the past, when winter came, it was hard to buy things, and families would store a cellar full of cabbage. Now, with the developed commodity economy, they feel there is no need to store, but when a crisis hits, they realize they still need to store something. If nothing is stored, a sudden lockdown for a few days means there is nothing to eat. The increase in uncertainty makes people recall that we still need to prepare for the future. Currency is merely a means of reserve; it is just that people's mindset has shifted from not worrying about the future to needing to worry about it.

Flytofu: But the cryptocurrency space, or the Bitcoin ecosystem, is very unstable.

Hu Yilin: On the contrary, Bitcoin is the most stable and conservative investment because it does not change. When Powell opens and closes his mouth, the total amount of dollars can change dramatically. Not to mention a hundred years; even the dollars from ten years ago are no longer the same thing. But one Bitcoin is one Bitcoin; it remains the same forever. From an ontological perspective, it is stable and represents a long-term expectation for the future. The growth of the total social economy is due to continuous technological development—of course, this is also a perspective. From a long-term perspective, the only truly stable growth in the world comes from technology; everything else is unstable. Politics can fluctuate, and culture can change. As long as technology rises, the total social economy will increase, and fixed-quantity currency will appreciate. If we envision a future society based on Bitcoin, it will appreciate in accordance with the growth of the total economic output.

One major argument from fiat currency supporters is that gold-backed currency cannot keep up with the speed of social economic growth and transaction demand. If the money supply does not increase, it will lead to deflation. To cope with this, the government must regulate fiat currency depreciation to match the speed of economic growth. In the long run, fiat currency will inevitably depreciate because it is designed to depreciate. But Bitcoin supporters believe this regulatory thinking is wrong. Allowing currency to appreciate will not cause the economy to collapse; this is the theory of liberalism and Austrian economics. The world has not truly experienced a Bitcoin standard yet, so this theory has not been empirically validated. The idea that a Bitcoin-based world would be better is currently more of a belief.

Flytofu: What advantages does Bitcoin have over gold?

Hu Yilin: First, gold is not a currency with a very predictable and stable total supply; the changes in mining technology and speed are uncertain. Second, gold is inefficient as a currency; it is inconvenient to carry, and its verification and division are limited. The theory of infinite divisibility is practically impossible; if you take very thin gold foil to the market for trading, others cannot accept it immediately; it must be taken for verification to determine if it is real or fake. The material characteristics make gold more suitable for centralized storage, so a gold standard must have paper currency as a token. However, exchanging tokens for gold is also very difficult. When Germany wanted to exchange gold from the United States, it required national effort to send transport ships and engage in various diplomatic efforts, even threats. This centralized storage method is very prone to credit collapse.

Bitcoin is relatively flexible and can be infinitely divided. Of course, transactions have costs, and division still has limits, so widespread adoption would be similar to gold, using tokens like fiat currency or L2, Lightning Network, etc., to transact off the main network. The difference from gold lies in the simplicity of this exchange method. You can achieve it in a decentralized and autonomous manner. Bitcoin can have a relatively centralized medium or token form that accelerates dissemination to meet daily transaction needs, but it will not encounter the situation where gold is stored in the U.S. central bank and cannot be retrieved when needed.

Flytofu: Do you think the essence of Bitcoin is value storage, a value benchmark, or a means of payment?

Hu Yilin: The essence of currency is both value storage and a means of payment; they are not contradictory. Bitcoin is a form of currency. When currency serves as a means of payment, it has a medium, which confuses many people about the medium and what the medium carries. The face value of a hundred-dollar bill represents a value carried by the paper medium, but this value can also be carried by checks made of paper, plastic bank cards, or completely non-physical Alipay accounts. When we say that the renminbi is a means of payment, we refer to the methods like Alipay and bank cards that transmit accounts priced in renminbi. Alipay or that piece of paper is the means of payment; the renminbi transcends the means of payment, and all of these are priced in renminbi.

When we talk about Bitcoin, it is easy to confuse concepts. This term represents many meanings: wallet software, protocols, blockchain, currency units, and the ledger itself is also called Bitcoin. It also includes various means of payment, including the main network, Lightning Network, sidechains L2, centralized exchanges, and future issued stablecoins, etc. Bitcoin is the unit of account for these means of payment; it cannot serve as a means of payment itself because the throughput of the main network is very low and inefficient, so it cannot be the only means of payment. Therefore, the Bitcoin-based world I envision is one where the unit of account in various means of payment is replaced with Bitcoin.

Flytofu: But some people say that the fixed total supply of Bitcoin makes it unsuitable as a currency.

Hu Yilin: After the collapse of the gold standard, the U.S. shifted the blame, saying that the excessive issuance of currency was not due to greed but because the market was progressing. The supply of gold was insufficient, and to maintain currency stability, excessive issuance was necessary. But this is essentially a breach of trust. If everyone cannot excessively issue currency, then those with money will not hit those without money, and the world will be peaceful.

Flytofu: If there is no excessive issuance, wouldn't the physical value corresponding to a unit of Bitcoin keep increasing? Isn't this a form of instability?

Hu Yilin: The development of technology itself is stable. People in our era can best understand that the higher the technological level of commodities, the faster they depreciate; smartphones depreciate every year. In contrast, more inert things like real estate, energy, and land—those traditional wealth carriers of vested interests—will appreciate. Technological products themselves are depreciating, which does not affect the free exchange of the market; it only impacts traditional resource-based products and commodities with lower technological content, which are the things that old money cares about. They design a lie to make you believe that currency depreciation is good for you. They often rely on overextension to get rich, needing to constantly borrow new to pay off old debts, with future money being cheaper than past money. Therefore, the more they borrow, the richer they become. The pension system is designed for future generations to work off the debts of previous generations. This is unfair because the poor cannot borrow money. The poor save money bit by bit, accumulating their life savings, only to see it depreciate in the end, leaving nothing behind.

Now this model faces the problem of population decline, and the Ponzi scheme can no longer continue. This is an economic system built on the logic of currency depreciation and population growth, where four young people used to support one elderly person, but now it has turned into four elderly people relying on one young person. Previously, the entire world was expanding, while money was depreciating; now it has collapsed. Even without Bitcoin stirring the pot, it would not be able to continue. The properties and Moutai that the elderly speculated on—why should the younger generation take over? The new generation of young people does not want to take over. You could sit back and enjoy the interest, but now we young people work our whole lives, and there will be no descendants in the future. So now, conversely, population decline leads to currency appreciation; this is the future's play, and Bitcoin can adapt.

The United Nations' "2024 World Population Prospects" report lists countries where population growth has peaked and may continue to grow, predicting that by 2080, the number of people aged 65 and older will exceed the number of children under 18 in the world.

Flytofu: People are also worried that Bitcoin now feels somewhat co-opted by the U.S. For example, ETFs have already had a significant impact on Bitcoin's price.

Hu Yilin: It is Bitcoin that has co-opted the U.S., not the other way around, because Bitcoin has not changed; the U.S. has changed. The U.S. needs to change its legislation to co-opt Bitcoin, but the Bitcoin protocol and program have not been specially updated for Americans or for Trump. On the contrary, Bitcoin will increasingly influence the dollar. The U.S. treats Bitcoin as a reservoir for dollars, and we are moving toward a Bitcoin-based standard.

Moreover, everyone is equal when it comes to buying coins. Compared to ordinary people, in OTC, the U.S. has only disadvantages, no advantages, because the procedures are more complex. In front of Bitcoin, everyone is equal; the difficulty of buying coins with one hundred dollars is the same as with ten thousand dollars. The U.S. dollar is exported through loans, and those at the top of the social pyramid, the 1%, find it easier to borrow money than you do. Those closest to the faucet can borrow money more easily, leading to capital appreciation and earning interest on their money. But Bitcoin is equal; it has no interest, and everyone faces the same conditions when buying, with individuals even having an advantage.

Flytofu: Now people are also worried that central banks or large enterprises will hoard Bitcoin and not release it for trading, while each block reward keeps halving, meaning miners will receive less and less in transaction fees and rewards. Eventually, miners may lack the incentive to maintain this network. Do you have this concern?

Hu Yilin: If the Bitcoin standard does not succeed, then there is this danger. If it succeeds, there will be no such problem. The demand for settlement of a large number of daily transactions will be provided by third-party centralized institutions like Alipay. Those institutions also need to settle; otherwise, their money is not real. The Bitcoin standard will break this financial order, but there will still be hierarchies in the new financial order. It won't be the central bank but rather the main network that becomes the most reliable entity, with branches below it, such as the Lightning Network, trading mediums, Alipay, centralized exchanges, and other third-party platforms where a large amount of daily consumption occurs. Even ordinary people, if they do not consume, still need to withdraw Bitcoin from the platform, and there will be settlement needs between institutions. In 2017, there was a debate about Bitcoin becoming too congested and needing to expand quickly; now the debate has shifted to Bitcoin being too quiet. The entire Bitcoin market is currently immature and unstable, naturally leading to fluctuations. Sometimes it is full, sometimes it is empty, and it has not yet formed a good self-regulating market mechanism; the entire ecosystem is not robust enough. Although those large institutions are hoarding coins, does that mean they are not trading? Ordinary people are the same.

The term "Bitcoin standard" is the most accurate. Under the Bitcoin standard, there may be many impressive other tokens, securities, or projects. They may be more eye-catching, but Bitcoin is their background; this is what is meant by the Bitcoin standard. The Bitcoin standard does not mean that Bitcoin is supreme, but it is the most fundamental and stable.

The Variety of the Crypto World: Memecoins, Trump Coins, AI

Flytofu: When we talked last year, the Bitcoin ecosystem was still in its infancy. After a year, do you feel a bit disappointed?

Hu Yilin: The entire circle needs chaos. At that time, a significant issue with Ethereum was that it seemed like a revolutionary figure had just taken over a stronghold and immediately wanted to establish a kingdom, aiming for long-term stability and even considering environmental protection. Ethereum's shift to POS was the most foolish move, as if it believed it had already become the leader of the world and started thinking about the future and environmental issues. Bitcoin forks itself, and in the end, it is a battle where everyone votes. There is no single leader making the final decision; it is all determined by the market. If the market truly needs POS in the end, then it will wait for the market to fork. But Vitalik seems to have a sense of responsibility; his flaw is that he is too good, and the problem is that he is a wise ruler, but a wise ruler is still a ruler. This circle is still in the era of Chen Sheng and Wu Guang; although there are figures like Liu Bang and Xiang Yu emerging, it is still in chaotic battles and has not reached the point of considering a century-long foundation. The truly long-lasting foundation will also emerge from the market's final battles, not from top-down decisions made impulsively. Looking at Ethereum's actions, it is clear that it is not viable. Currently, the logic of the crypto world, or the entire ecosystem and gameplay, has not truly matured. It still needs chaos, and the Bitcoin ecosystem is also part of that chaos.

But in terms of inevitability, Solana indeed aligns better with the market's enthusiasm for quick entry and exit. Recently, I have been quite supportive of the Solana ecosystem; its existence is reasonable, and we must respect the market. Although I believe the Bitcoin ecosystem is good, if I bet wrong, I must acknowledge it. The demand and enthusiasm of everyone are still focused on these things. Memecoins, in a sense, also have their significance.

Pepe the Frog

Flytofu: What do you think is the significance of Memecoins, and where does their legitimacy lie?

Hu Yilin: Memecoins are like cyber parades. The overall state of revolution is chaotic and brutal; during revolutionary parades, many people are in an irrational state, randomly killing and destroying machines. This has been especially common in Western history. Modern capitalism, with its seemingly stable systems like democracy and maritime law, has become stable, but looking back at periods of change, we can see two forces acting simultaneously.

One part is elitism, including Rousseau, Hume, Montesquieu, etc. They have utopian visions and practical suggestions, as well as real efforts; they play the roles of idealists and builders. But there is also a part that represents the power of the masses, which is very irrational and riotous. When a new concept emerges, there is a riot, even leading to looting, without truly understanding what they are pursuing or how to achieve it, and there is no long-term thinking involved. This force and the elite's power must work together to overthrow the old world. Having only elites without grassroots movements will not work, and having only grassroots without elite guidance will also not work. Even if we do not speak of mutual respect, the two forces must acknowledge each other.

935: This technology was supposed to be a forward-looking tool to resist the past, which we suffered from excessive instrumental rationality, excessive quantification, and the characteristics of modernity that are centered on technology and science. However, the underlying philosophical view we are using this technology for seems to be a return to modernity, such as "Code is law," completely entrusting credit to mathematics and code. How can we ensure that in the future, the power systems of society will not infiltrate the act of purchasing Bitcoin? Will the systems of power and hierarchy infiltrate and change the protocol?

Hu Yilin: Where is the problem with modernity? Using technology as the sole criterion is problematic; it does not mean that technology is wrong just because it is accurate. The problem with technology is that it is too accurate, erasing other imprecise values, which is the issue of modernity. But reflecting on modernity does not mean rejecting science; we still believe in technology. I often use the example of taking a photo. If I take a photo of you, the photo is accurate and can convey an accurate impression of you, but it cannot be considered you. The photo is a medium that depicts you, while you contain richer and more dynamic information than the photo. We believe that technology is an accurate photo, but we cannot consider technology as the only means of understanding.

In Bitcoin, we need to trust technology and mathematics, but the most important thing is still people, the default stability in our shared lives. The premise of running a pork shop is believing that everyone will eat pork; you believe that one day the whole world will not suddenly stop eating pork. This is not mathematics or science; it is a default understanding of human society. Bitcoin also has such a "human" mechanism. Can Bitcoin's upper limit be increased? Or can it be shut down? Yes. As long as everyone agrees, it can happen. When we say it is stable, it is not in the absolute mathematical sense; this stability comes partly from mathematics and partly from people's faith in it, a relative expectation for future society.

Flytofu: How do you understand Trump's issuance of coins?

Hu Yilin: Trump really knows how to play; he is indeed an old businessman, and an old rogue has no scruples. For those who believe in liberalism, this can also be a good thing. We all believe in Hayek's idea of "The Denationalization of Money," advocating that individuals and companies can also issue coins; the market economy should be like this. Currency is just a type of commodity and should not be monopolized by any individual or institution. Since anyone can issue coins, that person can certainly be Trump. This demonstration effect tells everyone that anyone can issue coins, returning to this liberalism. In the short term, it will affect this market; everyone will come to harvest the chives, and once the chives are harvested, the market will indeed not improve. But in the long term, it can be seen as a progress of liberalism. Issuing coins in a very cheap way demystifies the act of issuing coins, which can also be seen as a form of ideological liberation.

935: But only if these coins are genuinely used as a currency for equivalent circulation and trading can they be considered in line with Hayek's vision of non-state currency, or similar to the "free banking" era, right? Now these so-called "coins" are more like disposable consumer goods.

Hu Yilin: Circulation can be large or small, and it also depends on the scope of circulation. Similar to the current internet celebrity economy, a small group of people chases a streamer to vote and send tokens on the platform; even if they rank very high, they do not earn money. Currency is also a type of commodity; some commodities have a wide circulation range, while others are narrow. Some are lively for three to five days and then disappear, while others last for three to five years. The gold standard and the dollar were only lively for thirty to fifty years. These celebrity coins and internet celebrity coins are all ephemeral products of the internet economy.

Past imaginations were limited. Back then, currency and tokens did not have so many flashy uses. Now, coins are no longer issued through banks; internet celebrities can issue coins, and the vouchers issued by coffee shops are, in a sense, also tokens, right? It is just that now they are issued using blockchain technology, making it more open and transparent. Its liquidity is also better; originally, you could only come back to drink coffee, but if there is a market for trading at any time, then it is no longer narrowly defined as a currency that measures value but becomes a broader token. This is in line with the trend of the times. Many people feel that the trend of the times itself is wrong and very broken, but now it is entertainment to death; the internet is an irrational world.

Today, finance has come down from its pedestal, and those trading coins are no different from those playing finance on Wall Street. This is a decentralized, transparent finance where everything can be traded and bought. If it cannot be disposed of and cannot yield dividends, what does it have to do with individuals? Only things that can be financialized truly belong to your personal control. The internet celebrity economy is an emotional economy, but emotions are invisible and intangible; they cannot be found anywhere. Now, through these tokens, emotions are transformed into something tradable.

Flytofu: What is the significance of crypto for AI, and what is the significance of AI for crypto?

Hu Yilin: The current discourse on AI is elitist, like the white left saying that AI is very dangerous and should not be made public. It seems they want to carefully control its values and ensure that AI does not go astray. But this is wishful thinking; technological development is inherently difficult to control. On the other hand, this is also arrogant. Why should the values of this small group of people represent the values of all humanity? This small group cannot even manage themselves; they say AI should align with humans, but have they aligned themselves? It is neither possible nor should it be. The future model must be open and require a financial model to support it. AI consumes money while also generating income; the flow of funds itself needs management. We do not oppose a relatively structured AI governance model; there still needs to be a small group, a small community, or a nation, community, or institution to train our AI. When we have the right to train our AI, how to finance, invest, and share dividends from AI's benefits is very important; it should not be based on overly globalized, large capital-oriented models. Otherwise, in the end, the strong will become stronger, and it will still be centralized.

The only thing that can counter large institutions is decentralization and open source. But the problem with open source is that it cannot make money. Like the open-source community during the Linux era, it was driven by passion and could not earn much, but that did not matter. There was a hacker spirit driving programmers to maintain it. However, AI is different; the energy consumption and investment are significant, and the output is also substantial, bringing rich social benefits and value. There needs to be a decentralized financial system to support the open-source AI ecosystem. The open contract system of blockchain can form a relatively independent governance model.

Flytofu: This scenario is already close to science fiction.

Hu Yilin: "In a more sci-fi scenario, if AI entities awaken, what currency will they use? AI needs energy, and the things they create also need to be traded, so what currency will they use? Will they be subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Reserve? Therefore, it is likely that they will use cryptocurrencies, especially Bitcoin, as a very basic currency.

Closer to home, it is still about how to establish diversity in AI training. In fact, both the left and the right support the idea that the world needs diversity; anti-globalization, anti-universalism, and a return to pluralism is a trend. The problem in the internet age is how to maintain diversity in an environment where information flows too freely and abundantly. McLuhan predicted in the 1970s that in the electronic age, the Earth would become a village. To him, this was a terrifying concept; so many people flooding into one village would be extremely crowded, noisy, and chaotic, erasing the boundaries between individuals. The original boundaries naturally existed to maintain cultural diversity. In the internet world, this geography has disappeared. Industrialization and urbanization have made large cities look the same, and regional characteristics have increasingly faded; even local dialects are slowly forgotten. The universalism that flattens everything is wrong; we need to restore a pluralistic world. However, on the other hand, a diverse world is difficult to fix, so the Western left has turned to using skin color to define diversity. The boundaries of geography, culture, and ethnicity have all been broken, and in the end, they can only become boundaries of skin color. After all, you cannot just dye your skin, so it becomes an emphasis on skin color and sexual orientation to distinguish differences. But this method is very narrow, categorizing people like animals.

Fundamentally, we need to return to the path of how small communities can live together. In a large market, we need to have our own plots of land, and the boundaries must have some separation. Currency and economic systems also represent a relative separation. Today, we need some barriers to allow a small community to maintain its independence. In the internet age, the narrative of the nation-state is outdated; what will replace it is certainly a narrative of community with new imaginations, and its boundary mechanism may be blockchain. At first, I was also resistant; every time a DAO is created, a coin has to be issued. But in a sense, it is indeed necessary to issue a coin to establish a buffer, allowing you to have self-determination and create a small ecosystem internally. The internet of the Web2 era is a completely flattened, borderless ecosystem; through this method, we return to a relatively bounded ecosystem.

There are many examples in the history of technology. If something circulates too quickly, it will replace other similar products. For example, ancient Rome invented glass, using it for drinking and eating, while China mainly used pottery and porcelain. Initially, these two cultures were relatively isolated and did not connect quickly. Once they connected, it was found that glass could be replaced by porcelain, leading to the use of porcelain cups and bowls, rendering glass obsolete. If the two worlds had been too closely connected from the beginning, porcelain might have developed so much that glass would have had no place and would have been lost. Having relative separation allows different places to develop their own technological paths, and only after different technological paths have developed to a certain extent can they converge, which is true diversity. If they converge from the start, the entire technological tree of glass may never have the opportunity to branch out, and telescopes and microscopes would all be lost. Conversely, if glass were to swallow porcelain, many beautiful cultural artifacts would also be lost. The development of AI is similar. If we understand AI through the lens of productivity supremacy, we will fall into the Matthew effect where the strong get stronger, and AI development will converge towards efficiency. However, if we choose AI based on community culture, training each AI according to the different preferences of each community, it may be much better.

Flytofu: In your book "Introduction to the Philosophy of Technology," you wrote, "We cannot expect to control the overall trend of technological development with individual power. However, individuals always have room to influence specific technologies." From the perspective of individuals, how can each of us, as weak individuals, influence the direction of crypto technology?

Hu Yilin: Hoarding coins is the most direct influence; what coins you hoard supports that coin. If I hoard Bitcoin, I am supporting Bitcoin; if I hoard US dollars, I am supporting the US dollar. It must align with your ideals. The second way is to try out new technologies, experience wallet plugins, NFTs, and the new social organization methods created by blockchain, including becoming a digital nomad. Everything contains your political views; when a programmer develops a small, specific technical function, it also embodies your political views. Modern society creates a kind of numbness; everyone no longer pays attention to the impact of what they do, only obeying orders from superiors, fulfilling their responsibilities, and even producing the rope that strangles themselves. Therefore, we need to break out of this modernity; the first step is self-awareness, to reflect on the ideals and concepts behind everything we do. What is the ultimate purpose of doing this? What does it provide? Who does it contribute to, and what kind of impact might it have on society? Everyone deserves to think about this; that is freedom.

Flytofu: This book also states, "Human freedom is not only reflected in the ability to choose between rice and noodles but in the ability to reflect at any time." This statement greatly inspires me.

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。