"Self-Orientalization" in Crypto Narratives
Opening Statement
I want to discuss the narrative of the East-West divide in the realm of cryptocurrency. From community preferences to the abilities of founders, and even to the market sentiments that often don’t align, all these factors point to this topic, whether explicitly or implicitly. In fact, everyone's perspective cannot remain consistent. For example, the older generation of liberals, like Snowden, views Solana as centralized. Although this is indeed the case, stating it directly can be quite damaging. Meanwhile, the Ethereum community rarely criticizes Solana, as they are all part of the PoS model; the most important thing is to coexist harmoniously and work together to expand the public chain market.
Now, shifting the topic, why are Chinese founders considered adept at creating applications, yet they struggle to build a centralized public chain?
A clever defense might argue that public chains are closer to the underlying protocols, a territory where Western founders thrive, as they selflessly aspire to serve all of humanity. Of course, this is nonsense. It’s important to note that during the early wave of public chain startups, the funds and technologies that Chinese entrepreneurs gathered were not inferior to those in the West. Western entrepreneurs also find it hard to claim they "defeat the East" in the public chain arena. From the epic collapse of EOS to the unfavorable years faced by Near, Avalanche, Fantom, and ICP, even Solana and TON can’t be guaranteed to survive into the next cycle; it’s just that Ethereum's success shines too brightly. Ultimately, the cultural division between East and West does not apply in the crypto space. Amid the current global trend of retreating from globalization, the cryptocurrency sector stands as a rare bastion of global discourse. We should not fall into the self-imposed shackles of nationalism, nor should we engage in “self-Orientalization” that constrains us. I want to emphasize the latter part of this statement.
The Dream Palace of Crypto Narratives
In my previous article, I pointed out that the gravitational pull of technical narratives often aligns with the interests of one specific nation against others, making it less free. However, the logic and development history of technology do not strictly adhere to binary responses of acceptance or opposition. More often, technology, commerce, and different entities intertwine in complex ways. For instance, today, both consumer-grade 4090 and industrial-grade H100 still serve their respective roles in a certain Eastern nation. Returning to the narrative that "Eastern founders are suitable for applications while Western founders are suitable for technology," the embedded logic suggests that Westerners create foundational protocols or programming languages, while some Chinese teams in Shenzhen or Kuala Lumpur burn the midnight oil in a conveyor-belt style of development to bring products to market. This stereotype does have a basis in reality, at least in the Web2 space. However, the Web3 realm is not so simple. Today, it’s hard to imagine any Web3 entrepreneur targeting only the mainland Chinese or Chinese market from the outset; this would be akin to focusing solely on sewing machine development. Globalization has never been more tangible; even the internationalization of foreign trade does not reach the heights of Web3.
Moreover, if Chinese entrepreneurs excel at creating applications, then mass adoption wouldn’t be necessary. This irony resembles a form of dark humor. Currently, the largest application areas in the Web3 space are exchanges and stablecoins. Exchanges are indeed dominated by Chinese entities, but whether trading equates to genuine user engagement remains debatable. Unfortunately, the crypto narrative has yet to find its dream palace. The focus has shifted from tracking funds on-chain to observing the Federal Reserve’s decisions and dynamics, as well as the trends in U.S. stocks, and even the movements of Elon Musk. All of this signifies the "mainstreaming" of cryptocurrencies, with the only flaw being that this is not happening on the U.S. West Coast or East Coast—Web3 has not unfolded in every corner of the world. While this occurrence worldwide does not negate the adoption rates of cryptocurrencies in other regions, it is worth noting that countries like Cambodia and Nigeria have relied on USDT to mitigate the tidal waves of dollarization, which may represent their first opportunity to navigate crises safely.
However, this is still insufficient. If we consider the operational processes of cryptocurrencies more deeply, the situation is not rosy. Analyzing from the perspectives of capital, technology, and market, it appears that the West occupies the realms of capital and foundational technology, while the Chinese have the application technology and market presence. Meanwhile, the broader Global South cannot provide any public goods beyond the market. Three hundred years ago, the transatlantic slave trade occurred; one hundred years ago, colonies served as markets for dumping products. Today, Web3 still reflects a significant inequality between regions. The rapid devaluation of Nigeria’s currency starkly mirrors the brutal internal competition of Web3. We must revisit Bitcoin, where Satoshi Nakamoto used it to mock the actions of various governments that resorted to bailouts following the subprime mortgage crisis. This context is crucial for cryptocurrency to transition from idealism to reality. More than a decade later, Solana is promoting PayFi, and Vitalik is celebrating Celo's stablecoin surpassing Tron. So why not start with payments from the outset? If the goal is to pursue consumer-grade applications, then why impose the stereotype that Chinese are more suited to applications? Even venture capitalists and developers are expected to conform to this notion, which does not assist in actual business expansion. The establishment of stereotypes arises not only from external pressures but also from self-adaptive tendencies, which can be termed self-Orientalization.
In a sense, I can understand this feeling. Edward Said’s concept of Orientalism elucidated this mentality decades ago. Ordinary people from non-Western countries tend to subconsciously perceive the West as either terrifying or utopian, while the elite construct an image of the "other," analyzing in which areas they are insufficiently "Western" and striving to overcome each deficiency.
Rejecting Self-Orientalization and Moving Towards Internationalism
The term "East" is derived in contrast to Westernism. When we cannot express ourselves, we become defined by others. Over time, we may even become accustomed to being defined, operating within a confined framework in the safety zone. Last year at Token2049, crypto Jews became representatives of the Chinese mindset. However, one year later at Token2049, consumer-grade applications have not formed a genuine consensus. If one does not profit from trading on-chain, PVP, and meme coins, engaging with local people face-to-face in Africa, Asia, and Latin America may not be easy, causing considerable anxiety among practitioners. Nevertheless, the era of high on-chain yields is undoubtedly over; the decline of VC tokens and the diminishing market value of new memes are telling signs. The era of easy profits has ended.
This is the best of times; genuine developers, globally-minded founders, and long-term-oriented capital will unfold new legendary stories in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, akin to the tales of PayPal in the U.S. and Alipay in China. Forever free, without the need for definitions. I believe that the de-trading of cryptocurrencies is about to occur, where the alpha returns will vastly exceed the current on-chain PVP. Transitioning from trading to non-trading and extending into non-financial applications, the true users and application scenarios will gradually reveal their true forms. Let us hope this is not the worst of times.
This article is adapted from Foresight News:
https://foresightnews.pro/article/detail/69154
Best regards,
AIC Team
October 14, 2024
