Critique of Comrade Meng Yan's Views

Comrade Meng Yan published a lengthy article, expressing his feelings that the United States has passed the GENIUS Act, claiming it is the Bretton Woods Conference of modern monetary history and the Nixon Shock, asserting that the "supranational network" of the US dollar stablecoin has incorporated the world into its system, and that other countries are facing the beginning of a currency sovereignty defense battle.

The writing in the article is moving, grand, and has a broad perspective. While reading, I was momentarily dazed, as if I were witnessing a prophetic thinker who had traversed two centuries, worrying about the future of the entire human financial system.

But after calming down, I can't help but ask: Who is this article written for?

If it is written for the Chinese government, then you may really underestimate the country's strategic investment in blockchain in recent years. Since 2019, when it was proposed that "blockchain is an important breakthrough for independent innovation in core technologies," the central bank has been promoting the implementation of DC/EP while clarifying the importance of blockchain at the institutional level; distributed ledger platforms with state-owned backgrounds are emerging one after another, and consortium chain and industrial chain projects are blooming everywhere.

Indeed, not every project is reliable, but the accusation of "ignoring blockchain and sitting idly by while falling behind" is probably not true.

If it's aimed at the industry, especially for internet entrepreneurs in China, it's even more relevant. Chinese internet companies have not stopped exploring the Web3 direction over the years: some are working on NFTs, building public chains, developing wallets, and creating the metaverse... The attempts have been scattered and they've suffered quite a lot. But at least they haven't been absent. The reality is, under the dual pressure of regulatory constraints and vague overseas policies, the path from experimentation to implementation, and from product to application, is very limited. We can criticize their execution ability and the ambiguity in direction, but we cannot say they haven't been trying.

If anyone owes an apology to blockchain, it is those fraudulent schemes masquerading under the name of blockchain.

Ultimately, what may move the author the most in this article is himself. He sighs that "blockchain needs to be re-understood," laments that "we once missed the opportunity," and even hopes to "say sorry to blockchain"—it sounds sincere and heartfelt.

But the question is: if the deep love for this land expressed in the article is true, shouldn't we be getting involved, working on the ground, and contributing positively?

It's too easy to discuss theories from across the ocean.

I do not oppose criticism, nor do I oppose creating pressure on the public opinion level, and I even do not oppose expressing some sentiment occasionally. However, the development of the industry has never been driven by one or two emotionally charged articles, but rather built up slowly by those who work diligently and lay the groundwork.

"Talk less about ideology and solve more problems" is what the industry needs most right now.

The real question has never been "Are we aware of this technological revolution?" but rather, "Do we have a way to implement this revolution steadily, practically, and reliably within the existing institutional environment?"

This is the difficulty.

The many phenomena mentioned in the article, such as the Australian central bank slowing its pace after the pilot, the policy oscillation in Singapore, and Wall Street banks conducting internal simulations but not rushing to implement them, do they not indicate that this is not a "China-specific procrastination problem," but rather a global issue of the complex interplay between technology and regulation, innovation and order?

To lay out this background, concluding it all as "playing dead" or as a "collective misjudgment of technology" is rather hasty.

In our industry, too many people have packaged their views with "sentiment." Today they talk about currency revolution, tomorrow about sovereignty challenges, and the day after they discuss the transformation of civilization forms. But if you really ask them: are you doing products? Or compliance? Or the underlying technology? Many have done nothing at all; at most, they have hosted a few blockchain friends in the Bay Area, attended a few overseas conferences, and then come back to write an article on "the strategic deficiencies in global governance."

This article is not without value; it raises awareness of the international geopolitical significance of the US dollar stablecoin, which is a good thing. However, if it is truly as stated in the article, with a heart for the country and the people, I would prefer to do something practical like many entrepreneurs in Hong Kong who are quietly building compliant exchanges and compliant stablecoins, or like the technical teams working on on-chain payment infrastructure, even if it is just a small step.

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

Apologizing to blockchain? It’s better to say thank you to those developers who are still working hard and to those who are willing to start a positive venture.

We can no longer waste time on self-indulgent lyricism.