Starting from Xianyang, Bitcoin and stablecoins have taken two paths
Written by: Liu Honglin
During the May Day holiday, I drove the Hexi Corridor and drove back to Xianyang on the last road.
Standing here, you will unconsciously recall the familiar names in those textbooks - half a tael, five baht coins, Chang'an, and the Han envoy to the Western Regions...... If the Silk Road was a channel for the exchange of civilizations, then Xianyang was the starting point behind it—not only the starting point of the Silk Road, but also the origin of the imperial value order.
Xianyang's role in history is the initiator of the system. It was not only the capital of the Qin Empire, but also the starting point of a complete set of systems that "unified measurement, standardized credit, and organized value circulation". The "stablecoins", "bitcoins" and "on-chain liquidation" we are talking about today seem to be technological innovations, but in fact they are still old problems: who will issue the currency, how to determine the price, and what is the maintenance of value consensus?
"Chengqin" stablecoin: practicality presses everything
After Qin unified the six kingdoms, the first thing he did was not to expand taxation, but to standardize - to unify weights and measures, unify writing, and of course money. The introduction of the "Half Tael Coin" is a nationwide integration of monetary forms and value standards, and it is also a kind of credit endorsement based on executive power.
The Han Dynasty further refined this structure. In the early years of the Western Han Dynasty, the currency system was reformed many times, and finally the "five-baht coin" was established as the national currency, and through the border mutual market, gold settlement and other mechanisms, the currency system was promoted to serve foreign trade, forming the bottom of the Silk Road.
Looking at stablecoins today, the logic is actually very close. USDT has even been considered more stable than local fiat currencies in many countries and regions. Not because it is politically stronger, but because it has wider circulation, more transparent credit, and lower transaction costs.
You say this isn't a kind of "Xianyang-level" functional node? It has no frontiers, but it has an exchange rate; There is no emperor, but there is a tacit understanding of the market.
USDT and USDC do not rely on computing power or the belief in "decentralization", but rely on anchoring, auditing, custody and clearing efficiency - behind these elements, it is actually a set of systems, but not a national system, but a new version of the combination of on-chain standards, business consensus and quasi-regulation.
This "new Xianyang" is no longer maintained by terracotta warriors, city walls and edicts, but by on-chain addresses, circulation agreements and transaction habits of "you transfer and I admit the account". It's not necessarily legal, but it's practical; It's not necessarily stable, but it's a solution that is available to most people in reality.
Its advantage lies precisely in the fact that it does not "fight against everything center" like Bitcoin, but selectively inherits the old system and connects with financial infrastructure, so that it quickly becomes mainstream in scenarios such as cross-border payment, gray finance, and exchange rate hedging.
In other words, it is not made for expression, but for use; It's not a bargaining chip for the ideal country, but an interface for the real world. It's like the "five-baht coin" in the digital age, it's about efficiency, compatibility and universality – it's not a rebellion against the old order, it's a digital rewriting of the system.
"Anti-Qin" Bitcoin: Against the Center of Everything
The logic of Bitcoin is almost entirely on the opposite side of the system.
It doesn't recognize the state, it doesn't have a center, it doesn't require you to "trust" any institution. What it wants is precisely "to trust" - don't believe what anyone says, whoever prints it is true, the rules are written in the code, the whole network is verified, and no one can change it. Consensus depends on computing power, order depends on rules, logic is extreme, and principles are cold.
This design is not a pat on the head, it reflects a response to the long-term operation of the centralized monetary system. And this problem is not uncommon in history.
In the late Qin period, the financial situation was tight, and the imperial court quietly lowered the weight of the "half tael coin", which seemed to have not changed the surface of the coin, but the actual shrinkage was serious, the market value fluctuated, and the trust of the people collapsed. The "Historical Records and Pingzhun Book" mentions that "the weight of money is uneven, and the people are suspicious and untrustworthy", which shows that once the central credit is shaken, the entire currency system will also be shaken.
The same was true at the beginning of the Han Dynasty. Although the central government tried to unify the coinage power, local private minting was prevalent and the enforcement power was insufficient. "Hanshu Food and Goods Journal" wrote that "there are many private coins, and they are forbidden but not stopped", the currencies are mixed, the standards are different, and the private trading system is almost in a state of self-operation. Li Zuojun pointed out in "A Preliminary Study of Monetary Policy Mistakes in the Han Dynasty" that the concentration of coinage rights is out of touch with the implementation, which leads to the idling of national credit and the failure of the system.
Bitcoin is a thoroughly technical response to this problem of "credit overflow + uncontrollable system". It is not an attempt to strengthen the center, but an attempt to cancel it: not by the state, not by commercial credit, only by the hard constraints of rules.
It is really not suitable for high-frequency payments, and the price fluctuates greatly, making it difficult to enter daily life. But it's not for the mainstream, it's for the margins – it has its own unique "security" in the midst of financial crises, hyperinflation, and political turmoil.
It's not for use, it's for escape; Not to make the system smoother, but to have room in the event of a complete loss of control.
After Xianyang: Freedom of Choice
To a certain extent, we can say that "Bitcoin is anti-Qin, and stablecoins are Qin-based". Bitcoin is a deep distrust of "the center will corrupt", and stablecoins are a realistic response to "the system will evolve".
History has long proven that the real stable circulation of money is never because "everyone likes it", but because "the system can hold it". The reason why the system can be supported is not by ideals, but by rules, governance and compatibility. Whether you rely on government decrees to mint coins or rely on code to write chains, the mechanism that "most people recognize" is the "origin of the system" where you are.
Now, the origin of those systems has shifted from Chang'an and Washington to Tether clearing addresses, USDC audit reports, EVM-compatible interfaces, or on-chain stablecoin contracts that are subscribed by a global user.
Qin's legacy is still there, but it has changed from a city to an agreement. Whether to accept Qin or anti-Qin is actually a choice made by each user when clicking the "Send" button.
This article is sourced from Foresight News:
https://foresightnews.pro/article/detail/84077
Respectfully submitted by the AIC Team
May19, 2025
