"Self-Orientalization" in Crypto Narratives
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
"Self-Orientalization" in Crypto Narratives
Forever free, undefined.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsBy Zuo Ye
To begin with, I want to talk about the East-West divide in crypto narratives—the community preferences, founders' capabilities, and even market sentiments where neither side bails out the other—all subtly or explicitly point toward this theme.
In reality, no one’s perspective is entirely consistent. To old-school libertarians like Snowden, Solana is centralized. While that may be factually true, saying it outright feels unnecessarily harsh. The Ethereum community rarely attacks Solana in such terms—after all, both operate under PoS models, and what matters most is moving forward together, avoiding infighting while expanding the public blockchain market collectively.
But let's shift focus: why are Chinese founders often seen as skilled at building applications, yet seemingly unable to build successful centralized public chains?
A clever defense is that public chains resemble foundational protocols—an area supposedly reserved for Western founders, who selflessly dedicate themselves to serving humanity.
Of course, this is nonsense. What's worth noting, however, is that during the early wave of public chain startups, Chinese teams were not lacking in capital or technical resources compared to their Western counterparts. Western founders haven't clearly "defeated" Eastern ones in the public chain arena—EOS suffered a legendary collapse, while Near, Avalanche, Fantom, and ICP have all faced setbacks. Even Solana and TON can’t be guaranteed to survive into the next cycle. It's just that Ethereum’s success has been exceptionally bright.
In truth, cultural East-West divisions don’t really apply in crypto. In today’s broader retreat from globalization, the crypto space remains one of the few surviving arenas of truly global discourse.
We must avoid the trap of nationalism, but also reject “self-Orientalization”—the act of conforming to stereotypes by cutting our own feet to fit foreign shoes. I particularly want to emphasize the latter point.
The Dream Palace of Crypto Narratives
In my previous article, I argued that the gravitational pull of technological narratives lies in aligning with one nation against others, making them inherently less free. Yet within technology’s own logic and development, responses aren’t simply binary—认同 vs. 反对. More often, technology, business, and diverse actors intertwine inseparably. For instance, even today, consumer-grade 4090s and industrial H100s continue performing expected—or perhaps unintended—roles within certain Eastern nations.
Returning to the narrative that “Eastern founders excel at apps, Western founders at tech,” the underlying assumption is that Westerners create base protocols or programming languages, while Chinese teams in Shenzhen or Kuala Lumpur burn the midnight oil, churning out applications on an assembly line. This stereotype has real-world roots—certainly true in Web2.
But Web3 is different. Today, it's nearly unimaginable for any Web3 founder to start by targeting only mainland China or the Chinese-speaking market. That would be like developing exclusively for sewing machines. Globalization has never felt more real—even international trade doesn’t match Web3’s level of global reach.
Secondly, if Chinese founders are so good at applications, then mass adoption wouldn’t be a challenge. That claim borders on dark irony. Currently, the largest Web3 application sectors are exchanges and stablecoins. Exchanges are indeed dominated by Chinese teams—but whether trading volume equates to real users remains questionable.
Unfortunately, the crypto narrative has yet to discover its dream palace. From obsessively tracking on-chain fund flows, to monitoring Fed decisions, U.S. stock trends, and even Elon Musk’s tweets—these all signal crypto’s “mainstreaming.” The only flaw? Everything still orbits either the West or East Coast of the United States. Web3 hasn’t truly happened everywhere.
When I say “happened everywhere,” I’m not dismissing adoption rates elsewhere. In fact, dollarized countries like Cambodia and Nigeria rely on USDT to escape the tides of dollar hegemony—and for some, this marks the first time they’ve weathered financial storms unscathed.
But it’s not enough. If we examine crypto’s operational pipeline more deeply—analyzing capital, technology, and markets—we see a clear imbalance: the West controls capital and core infrastructure; Chinese teams dominate implementation and market access; and the broader Global South contributes little beyond market demand, unable to supply any public goods.
Three hundred years ago, the transatlantic slave trade; a century ago, colonies served as dumping grounds for surplus goods; today, Web3 still reflects massive regional inequality. Nigeria’s currency collapse mirrors the brutal internal competition within Web3.
We must return once again to Bitcoin. Satoshi mocked government bailouts after the subprime crisis—that was the crucial context enabling crypto to transition from ideal to reality. Over a decade later, Solana pushes PayFi, Vitalik celebrates Celo surpassing Tron in stablecoin addresses. So why didn’t we start with payments from day one?
If we’re still chasing consumer-grade applications, why reinforce the stereotype that Chinese founders are naturally better at apps—and expect VCs and developers to comply? This does nothing to advance real business growth.
Stereotypes aren’t just imposed externally—they’re also adopted voluntarily, a phenomenon known as self-Orientalization.
In a way, I understand this mindset. Said’s concept of Orientalism explained it decades ago: ordinary people in non-Western societies often instinctively view the West as either terrifying or utopian. Elites, meanwhile, construct an image of the “Other,” meticulously analyzing how they fall short of being “Western enough,” then channel their exam-taker instincts to overcome each perceived deficiency.
Reject Self-Orientalization, Embrace Internationalism
"The East" is a term derived in contrast to Western-centric views. When we fail to define ourselves, others will define us for us. Over time, we grow accustomed to being defined, accepting predefined boundaries and operating safely within them.
At last year’s Token2049, the term “Crypto Jew” became a metaphor for the Chinese psyche. A year later at Token2049, consumer-facing applications still haven’t achieved broad consensus. If we truly stop chasing quick profits from on-chain speculation, PVP games, and memes, and instead go face-to-face with locals across Asia, Africa, and Latin America, it won’t be easy—many in the industry feel genuine fear about this prospect.
But the era of high on-chain yields is definitively over. The fading relevance of VC tokens and shrinking market caps of new meme coins are clear signs. The golden age of outsized profits has ended.
Yet this could be the best of times. True builders, globally-minded founders, and long-term capital will now have the chance to recreate in Africa, Asia, and Latin America the same kind of legends PayPal built in the U.S. and Alipay created in China.
Forever free, never defined.
I believe the de-financialization of crypto is coming—the alpha returns therein will dwarf current on-chain PVP gains by tenfold or more. From trading, to non-financial use cases, real users and authentic applications will gradually emerge.
Let this not be the worst of times.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
@zuoyeweb3
