MegaETH Co-founder: 48 Hours After Escaping Dubai, I Reassess the Entire Crypto Scene

Original Article Title: Iran Bombing Dubai Forced Me to Confront Tech, Civilization, and Oddly Enough, Crypto-Natives

Original Article Author: brother bing, MegaETH Co-founder

Original Article Translation: BitpushNews

I am writing and publishing this article after crossing the UAE-Oman border. The transit took about an hour and was very smooth.

Over the past 48 hours, I have been completely awestruck by the technology involved in this war. It was my first time witnessing a missile up close and seeing the interception system destroy it. I also came across some surreal, geeky, and even somewhat eerie details, such as reports of Israeli hackers breaching a prayer app to send messages to Iranians.

I have been involved in the tech industry for a long time, but this was indeed my first firsthand experience with a defense system. It gave me a whole new perspective on the relationship between technology and civilization.

Technology may give the illusion that it is "upgrading" civilization, but in fact, it merely amplifies the original direction of civilization—much like leverage trading (don't lose hope just yet!).

Allow me to explain.

During a healthy cycle of civilization's ascent, technology serves as a productivity booster and a collaboration tool. The early internet embodied this feeling.

I still remember 17 years ago when I was applying to US universities in Beijing, receiving help on various forums: strangers sharing advice, essays, and strategies (including how to wisely use early decision admission). The concept of closed APIs was unheard of back then.

But in a downward cycle, technology transforms into something else. It becomes an attention weapon (sometimes even a literal weapon!).

My 60-year-old parents are more addicted to doomsday doomscrolling than I am (many of my millennial friends are very worried about our parents). The same internet that once brought us open knowledge is now feeding algorithm addiction.

This framework explains the internal tension felt by most crypto natives today. Cryptocurrency feels like it was invented for the world we currently live in, yet everyone seems disillusioned.

So, what exactly happened?

I don't want to rehash the common tropes about the "forgotten cyberpunk spirit" or "getting too cozy with TradFi" that many industry OGs have already written about. Instead, I'd like to put forth two ideas:

Cryptocurrency was never meant to be just an asset class. As Evgeny wrote in the "Golden Path," cryptocurrency was intended to be a parallel system, a way to rearchitect finance with fewer boundaries, lower coordination costs, and flexible exit mechanisms.

Then things shifted. Legitimacy was thrust upon us, almost too easily. And once people got a taste of legitimacy, they wanted more.

Technology, as an amplifier, naturally seeks the path of least resistance, that is, integrating with existing power structures to further this legitimacy.

It's important to note that bringing institutions into blockchain infrastructure is not inherently wrong.

However, in this process, we quietly abandoned many old dreams. I find myself increasingly drawn back to those early use cases: small-scale fully collateralized/undercollateralized lending experiments, Tontine-like structures, and even better cross-border savings and exchanges.

These use cases are boring. They won't make headlines, let alone drive token hype. In the race for attention maximization and valuation, these niche but structurally significant ideas have been sidelined.

Stablecoins perfectly embody this paradox. They fulfill the argument for "internet money," but often only as a more user-friendly "wrapper" for sovereign currencies, rather than a structurally independent monetary system.

By the way, Mega certainly shares the blame. We still have a long way to go.

In my view, much of today's success should rightly be called "blockchain," not "crypto." If the aim is for traditional finance to become middleware, that's fine too. But let's be honest about it. Back-end integration ≠ reinvention.

Enough, price has never been the reason for everyone's disappointment. The sad reality is: between "what we can build" and "what we choose to build," we chose the wrong direction.

Back to the initial question: What has this war taught the people in the crypto space?

Zooming out, civilizations do have their cycles. As a Chinese person, I grew up learning about the dynasties' rise and fall. But in all those tales of emperors, generals, and rebels, what ultimately shines through is individual agency.

I don't know how else to put it, but the native crypto won't win because it's liked by people.

Our initial success was only possible because we kept finding and publicly criticizing the reasons why the old systems were insufficient. Then, somehow, any anti-establishment voices during this process were silenced.

During a downturn, it's easy for technology to amplify financialization, manipulation, and superficial growth. It's much harder to quietly build infrastructure that can expand real sovereignty.

But developers can still choose which incentive mechanisms to code. Founders can still decide which use cases to prioritize. More importantly, the community can still choose which values to uphold.

If societal sentiment shifts towards insecurity and seeking validation, technology will amplify that insecurity. But if a sufficient number of people consciously anchor themselves in long-term structures, anchored in collaborative tools rather than attention traps, then perhaps leverage can still work in our favor.

Many friends disapproved of my crossing into Oman. They said the border was unpredictable and chaotic, advising me to stay in Dubai. Dubai is indeed very comfortable. But without firsthand verification, I would never know the truth of those claims. As it turned out, the border was calm, few people were around, and the process was smooth.

The global macro environment is not in our favor, but in the long run, it may be.

For us in the crypto community, repositioning ourselves, verifying things firsthand, choosing the right things, and in the most cliché way, carving out a parallel path, will never be too late.

Just as my favorite YouTuber says: You can have a very sharp knife, but if the person holding it is a coward, nothing will happen. Let's sharpen the blade. Let's not be cowards.

QED (Quod Erat Demonstrandum).

Original Article Link