The future of crypto

Source: Daoshuo Blockchain

Only one line of digital gold is enough. Whether there is an ecosystem or not is not that important. After so many years of development of blockchain, Bitcoin is the only thing that has really landed and is valuable. The so-called ecosystem is just a vision and hope that we impose on ourselves. What do Web2.0 and 3.0 really have that we must have? Or can it not be achieved on Web 1.0?

This is a message from one of our readers.

This message is very valuable because almost every sentence in it condenses or represents the accumulated debates over the past decade of blockchain technology development and the focus that I have always paid close attention to.

"Only one line of digital gold is enough. Whether there is an ecosystem or not is not that important"

I think that for Bitcoin, "digital gold" is enough, and whether it has an ecosystem or not is really not that important. Because even if there is no ecosystem, in the current and future digital era, Bitcoin has a unique and outstanding status and value. No other encrypted asset based on blockchain technology can replace this.

However, if Bitcoin can have its own ecosystem, it must be better, because it can greatly expand its use and extend its value, and solve potential security issues.

But for blockchain technology, it cannot be said that only one "digital gold" is enough, because the potential it shows is far greater than "digital gold". Its future should carry a brilliant application ecosystem.

Bitcoin is just a very elementary application of blockchain technology, and it is only an application that was born when blockchain technology was in its infancy.

When Ethereum realized the Turing-complete platform based on Bitcoin, blockchain technology has undergone a qualitative sublimation.

Every technological innovation and qualitative change in human history must be accompanied by the subsequent scale and popularization of technology. This is a universal law of historical development.

This scale and popularization are either reflected in specific commodities or in specific applications or services.

What is "scale" and "popularization"?

That is, it has an almost irrefutable consensus and recognition.

Bitcoin certainly has value in our eyes.

But in the eyes of another group of people, it has no value, and their arguments are very straightforward: it cannot produce products, cannot generate interest, and cannot provide services, so where is its value?

In fact, this argument is difficult to refute.

Of course, for us, we can naturally empower Bitcoin from another perspective and add value to it.

Not only Bitcoin, but even gold is not immune.

Mr. Buffett's views on gold and Bitcoin are essentially the same.

So it is actually difficult for all mankind to reach a unified consensus on whether Bitcoin is valuable.

But none of us can deny the value of WeChat and Alipay.

Why?

Because they provide universal use value for the general public and can gain a high degree of consensus and recognition.

At least in this regard, Bitcoin and gold cannot compare---------I believe that there are still many Chinese who use WeChat and Alipay every day but do not have gold, let alone Bitcoin.

I am not saying that the value of Bitcoin must be recognized by the public and must be held by everyone, but I want to express:

If blockchain technology only creates a "digital gold", it would be too meaningless and not worth our exploration and struggle in this ecosystem.

Blockchain technology aims to create a decentralized world that allows all mankind to cooperate closely without barriers. And this world has almost never existed in human history. Therefore, it is destined to be difficult and challenging to explore and develop based on such technology. Because it challenges many inherent concepts and interests of human society, the most typical of which is "anti-censorship" and "decentralization".

Whose censorship are you resisting with "anti-censorship"? Whose centralization are you removing with "decentralization"----------It is very inconvenient to extend such a topic.

Besides, we have been domesticated by centralized thinking for thousands of years. To this day, there are still quite a few people among us who think of turning to authority instead of ourselves when problems arise. This is a deep-rooted "centralized" thinking.

Look at the authors of the papers cited in Satoshi Nakamoto's white paper. If we use our usual words, they are all "anti-thieves."

Look at Vitalik. When discussing a certain war issue, he dared to say "Russians do not have to support Russia." According to our habits, this is even more of an outright "anti-thief", right?

The real blockchain technology is led by such a small group of people, while the large number of audiences, developers and users they have to face are people who are full of centralized thinking and obey authority.

So in this ecosystem, our applications, our thinking, and our views can easily fall into pseudo-tracks, pseudo-applications, and pseudo-demands that have nothing to do with blockchain.

Therefore, it is easy to imagine how difficult it is to make some real progress in this field. Even after more than ten years of blockchain technology, we still have not found an application that can be widely popularized like Web 2.

Therefore, many people will naturally come to the following question:

After so many years of blockchain development, what is really valuable?

Or to be a little more objective: after so many years of blockchain development, what is really valuable is Bitcoin.

In fact, such difficulties and challenges are not uncommon. Let's not talk about the development of the Internet:

In 1969, the prototype of the Internet was born in the United States; in 1972, American universities had e-mail, but it was not until 1990 that the development of the Internet entered the fast lane.

And artificial intelligence has gone through nearly 40 or 50 years of exploration before it has reached today's explosion.

Compared with these technologies, the progress and development of blockchain technology has been amazing.

I firmly believe that blockchain technology is epoch-making, so I firmly believe that the application prosperity of blockchain technology will definitely come.

It’s just that I don’t know when and what form it will take.

So I don’t agree that “Ecology is just a vision and hope that we impose on ourselves”.

“What do Web2.0 and 3.0 really have that we must have? Or can’t it be achieved on Web 1.0?”

This passage reflects a common problem in the current crypto ecology.

Old readers who have read my past articles know that I think most of the current DePIN projects and most of the so-called AI + Crypto are pseudo-demands.

Why?

The reason is what this passage says, or more specifically:

I think many so-called DePIN and so-called AI+Crypto do not need blockchain technology at all, they can be completely implemented with Web 1.0 or Web 2.0 technology.

Just yesterday's article, I also said: Many current blockchain games can't compete with traditional games at all, because those so-called blockchain games do not need blockchain technology to achieve their desired user experience without token incentives. So in my opinion, those so-called blockchain games are not blockchain games in my mind at all.

There are so many pseudo-demands and pseudo-crypto projects like this in the current crypto ecosystem.

Despite this, I am still very optimistic.

Although what we see now is darkness, I believe there is real light ahead; although we are now surrounded by these fakes, I believe that in the future of this ecosystem, there will definitely be large-scale popular real applications.

This is a view that I have never wavered from.