One 'digital gold' is enough. The existence of an ecosystem is not that important; after so many years of blockchain development, the only truly valuable realization is Bitcoin. The so-called ecosystem is merely a projection of our dreams and hopes. What is truly essential about Web 2.0 and 3.0 for us? Or can’t it 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 surrounding blockchain technology development over the past ten years and the focal points I have always paid close attention to.
'One 'digital gold' is enough. The existence of an ecosystem is not that important.'
I believe that for Bitcoin, indeed, 'digital gold' is enough; whether it has an ecosystem is really not that important. Because even without an ecosystem, in the current and future digital era, Bitcoin has a unique and remarkable status and value. No other cryptocurrency based on blockchain technology can replace this.
However, if Bitcoin can have its own ecosystem, that would certainly be better, as it can greatly expand its utility and extend its value, while also addressing potential security issues.
But for blockchain technology, we cannot say that having only one 'digital gold' is enough, because the potential it demonstrates far exceeds 'digital gold.' Its future should carry a brilliant and prosperous application ecosystem.
Bitcoin is merely a very primitive application of blockchain technology, and it is just an application that was born during the nascent stage of blockchain technology.
When Ethereum achieved a Turing-complete platform based on Bitcoin, blockchain technology had already undergone a qualitative transformation.
Every technological innovation and qualitative change in human history has inevitably been accompanied by the subsequent scaling and popularization of technology. This is a universal law of historical development.
Such scaling and popularization must either reflect in specific goods or in specific applications or services.
What do we mean by 'scaling' and 'popularization'?
That is, it has almost irrefutable consensus and recognition.
From our perspective, Bitcoin certainly has value.
But from another part of people's perspectives, it is of no value, and their arguments are very straightforward: it cannot produce products, cannot generate interest, cannot provide services; where is its value?
In fact, this argument is hard to refute.
Of course, for us, we can naturally empower Bitcoin from another perspective, adding value to it.
Not only Bitcoin, but even gold cannot escape this.
Mr. Buffett's views on gold and Bitcoin are essentially no different.
Thus, it is very difficult for humanity to reach a unified consensus on whether Bitcoin has value.
But none of us can deny the value of WeChat and Alipay.
Why?
Because they provide universal value for the masses, gaining high consensus and recognition.
At least in this respect, Bitcoin cannot compare to gold—I believe that even today, many Chinese people who use WeChat and Alipay every day do not own gold, let alone Bitcoin.
I say this not to imply that Bitcoin's value must be recognized by the public or that everyone must hold it, but rather to express:
If blockchain technology merely produces a 'digital gold', that would be too uninteresting and not worth our exploration and struggle in this ecosystem.
Blockchain technology aims to create a decentralized world that enables all of humanity to collaborate closely without barriers. This world has scarcely existed in human history. Therefore, exploring and developing based on such technology is bound to be difficult and challenging, as it challenges many ingrained concepts and interests in human society, the most typical being 'censorship resistance' and 'decentralization.'
Who are you resisting censorship from? Who are you decentralizing away from?—talking about this topic can be quite inconvenient.
Moreover, we have been domesticated by centralized thinking for thousands of years, and to this day, a considerable number of us think of seeking help from authorities rather than reflecting on ourselves when problems arise—this is a deeply ingrained form of centralized thinking.
Take a look at the authors of the papers cited in Satoshi Nakamoto's white paper; if we put it in our accustomed terms, they are all 'rebels.'
Look at Vitalik; when discussing a certain war issue, he dares to say, 'Not all Russians have to support Russia.' By our standards, this is utterly 'rebellious,' right?
The real blockchain technology is led by such a small group of people, while they have to face a large audience, developers, and users who are filled with centralized thinking and obey authority.
Therefore, in this ecosystem, our applications, our thinking, and our viewpoints can easily fall into pseudo-tracks, pseudo-applications, and pseudo-needs that have nothing to do with blockchain.
Therefore, in this field, achieving any real progress is understandably difficult, and even after more than a decade of blockchain technology's implementation, we still have not discovered any applications that can be widely popularized like Web 2.
Therefore, many people will naturally come to this question:
After so many years of blockchain development, what has truly materialized with value?
Or to put it more objectively: after so many years of blockchain development, the only truly valuable realization is Bitcoin.
In fact, this kind of difficulty and challenge is not uncommon. Not to mention the distant past, just take the development history of the internet as an example:
In 1969, the prototype of the internet was born in the United States; by 1972, American universities had email, but it wasn't until after 1990 that the development of the internet entered the fast lane.
Artificial intelligence has taken nearly 40 to 50 years of exploration to reach today's explosion.
Compared to these technologies, the progress and development of blockchain technology have been astonishing.
I firmly believe that blockchain technology is epoch-making, so I firmly believe that the prosperity of blockchain technology applications will inevitably come.
I just don't know exactly when it will happen or in what form.
So I do not agree that 'the ecosystem is just a projection of our dreams and hopes.'
'What is really essential about Web 2.0 and 3.0 for us? Or can’t it be achieved on Web 1.0?'
This passage reflects a common problem existing in the current crypto ecosystem.
Readers who have read my past articles know that I believe that the vast majority of current DePIN projects and most so-called AI + Crypto are pseudo-needs.
Why?
The reason is as stated in this passage, or more specifically:
I think many so-called DePIN and AI + Crypto do not even need blockchain technology; they can be fully realized with Web 1.0 or Web 2.0 technologies.
Just yesterday, I mentioned in an article that many current blockchain games cannot compete with traditional games at all, because those so-called blockchain games can achieve the user experience they desire without blockchain technology, aside from token incentives. Therefore, in my view, those so-called blockchain games are not the blockchain games I envision.
There are simply too many pseudo-needs and pseudo-crypto projects like this in the current crypto ecosystem.
Even so, I remain very optimistic.
Although we currently see darkness, I believe there is real light ahead; although we are surrounded by these counterfeits, I believe that the future of this ecosystem will definitely see the emergence of widely popular genuine applications.
This is a viewpoint I have never wavered from.
