Why must China's internet develop its own public blockchain?
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Why must China's internet develop its own public blockchain?
Whether or not to build on the blockchain is no longer a question for Web3 entrepreneurs alone—it's a reality the entire Chinese internet must confront.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthors: Liu Honglin, Mao Jiehao
Over the past year, attorney Liu Honglin has discussed the question of "whether or not to build a public blockchain" with numerous entrepreneurs working in overseas expansion, platform development, and foundational blockchain technologies. What was once considered an exclusive concern within cryptocurrency circles is now becoming a serious consideration for an increasing number of internet entrepreneurs. Some teams are beginning to study underlying architectures; others are experimenting with using blockchains to connect payment networks and user systems; and some companies have even started building their own chains.
As a lawyer who has long been involved in compliance services for Web3.0 commercial projects, I am increasingly convinced this isn't just about technical choices or fundraising strategies—or even solely a matter internal to the Web3 space. Rather, it represents a systemic challenge and opportunity for China’s internet industry globally—one concerning globalization, account systems, payment infrastructure, and industrial control.
In this article, drawing from my observations, insights, and practical experiences in client work, I aim to offer preliminary perspectives and judgments as food for thought and discussion among Chinese internet entrepreneurs and practitioners.
National Level: Why Does China Need Its Own “Digital Gateway”?
Over recent decades, China has achieved global leadership in physical infrastructure such as high-speed rail, power grids, and telecommunications base stations. Yet in digital world infrastructure, we remain structurally dependent.
User identities are controlled by Google and Facebook; payment pathways rely on Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal; and advertising traffic acquisition still depends heavily on platforms like Google Ads and Meta Ads. At the foundational level of global internet logic, China holds almost no sovereignty.
This creates a critical vulnerability: when you launch social apps, content platforms, or e-commerce stores overseas, any policy change from these dominant platforms could instantly cut off your access to users. Identity verification, payment channels, and app distribution—all core components of your business—are owned by others. Your lifeline remains firmly in someone else's hands.
Public blockchains offer an alternative at the system level—one that doesn’t depend on banks or credit cards, nor require phone numbers or Facebook accounts. On-chain wallets become identity; stablecoins become currency; on-chain behavior becomes credit. This forms a globally accessible digital foundation not subject to unilateral control by any sovereign state.
We’re already seeing early prototypes of such models—like the Telegram + TON combination—which have begun forming integrated ecosystems across Central Asia, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Users can transfer USDT, make purchases, access AI plugins, and play games directly within Telegram—without relying on App Store, Visa, ID documents, or bank cards.
In essence, this model functions as a kind of “offshore port in the digital world.”
For China, the significance isn't merely about current sanctions—but rather preparedness: if geopolitical fragmentation intensifies or financial sanctions become routine, do we have backup routes? Countries like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela are actively exploring stablecoin and public chain settlement systems as emergency measures. For China, however, this should be a proactive strategic initiative.
This does not mean the state needs to directly issue its own chain. Instead, it means developing globally influential technological capabilities and constructing a digital globalization pathway under our own leadership. If one day a blockchain led by Chinese teams becomes the entry point for digital identity, payments, and asset flows in emerging markets—and is deeply integrated with domestic technology and trade—it would no longer be just another chain project. It would become part of the future digital equivalent of the Maritime Silk Road.
Commercial Level: Why Are Chinese Companies Starting to “Go Global with Their Own Chain”?
Today, expanding Chinese internet businesses overseas can no longer succeed through a single app or basic localization strategy alone.
Many Chinese internet ventures encounter three recurring challenges in internationalization:
First, restricted payments: low credit card penetration, fragmented local payment methods, and high barriers in international clearing systems make traditional solutions extremely costly;
Second, unstable user accounts: WeChat, Alipay, or mobile numbers cannot serve as universal identifiers abroad, forcing companies to rebuild user systems from scratch;
Third, compressed traffic: ad platforms impose increasingly strict policies, including content restrictions and monetary tightening.
In short, while apps can go global, the “operating system” they depend on cannot be replicated overseas. Public blockchains, however, act as a new type of operating system for global expansion—providing universally accessible account structures, stablecoin-based settlements, and open asset incentive models. They enable cost-effective operations even in countries lacking bank accounts, IDs, or major ad platform support.
Platforms like Bitget and OKX have already deployed integrated “chain + wallet + payment” solutions. Users can recharge, tip, and redeem points via non-custodial wallets—powered by the company’s own chain and stablecoin. Lighter-weight overseas projects are also starting to use on-chain systems for membership incentives, NFT tipping, content provenance, and loyalty point distribution—using blockchain as operational infrastructure.
This “bring-your-own-chain” approach is particularly effective in regions with large user bases but underdeveloped financial systems—such as Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia. In these markets, obtaining full payment licenses or integrating with local clearing institutions is often impossible. But with blockchain and wallets, companies can deliver end-to-end closed-loop services while bypassing traditional high-compliance thresholds. More importantly, such systems let you become the provider of “digital utilities”—infrastructure others can reuse. You shift from being an app company to an infrastructure player, fundamentally changing your position in the value chain.
From this perspective, the value of public blockchains for Chinese global ventures lies not in fundraising, but in enabling a leap from app-centric thinking to system-level architecture—with the potential to shape next-generation universal technical interfaces for the global internet.
User Level: Reconstructing Accounts, Assets, and Identity
From the user’s standpoint, the most direct impact of public blockchains is redefining what constitutes an “account” and “asset.”
Web2 account systems are “platform-dependent”: you may have TikTok, Weibo, or Xiaohongshu accounts, but ultimately they belong to the platforms. You lack portability and independent existence. Relationships, content, and even income accumulated on these platforms vanish entirely if your account is suspended or the product shuts down.
In contrast, Web3 wallets provide “user-sovereign accounts”: the address is yours, the assets are yours, and your content and behavioral records can themselves become assets or credit history. Logging in via wallet removes dependence on platform databases. Your NFTs, tokens, points, and identity can be used across platforms. The platform becomes merely a service provider—not the sole gatekeeper to your assets.
Web3 social applications like Farcaster and Lens Protocol are already turning on-chain accounts into digital IDs. A single post can exist as on-chain data, be minted as an NFT, carry revenue rights, and migrate across platforms. Users are no longer tied to platforms but evolve into “digital individuals” who can move freely—taking their identity and assets with them.
This trend resonates strongly with younger users’ growing distrust toward centralized platforms. Many have experienced account bans, frozen funds, lost data, or erased follower counts, making them naturally curious: “Can I retain ownership of my digital assets?” The spread of wallets is more than just wider adoption of a crypto tool—it reflects a growing awareness: “An account can simultaneously serve as identity, asset container, social hub, and credential.”
From this vantage point, on-chain account systems may eventually evolve into “super accounts,” integrating identity, assets, relationship graphs, usage history, and reward points—ultimately becoming each individual’s self-sovereign node in the digital world.
Global Landscape: The Next Infrastructure Race Has Already Begun
In recent years, public blockchains have evolved from technical experiments into a full-scale international competition. Each leading chain is vying for influence over the future “water, electricity, and internet” of the digital world. This contest is no longer just about technology—it’s about which ecosystem will become the global standard for identity systems, payment networks, data channels, and value protocols.
We can categorize today’s top global public chains into three strategic archetypes:
Type 1: Platform-Native Chains
Representatives: TON (Telegram), Base (Coinbase), BNB Chain (Binance)
These chains share a common trait: they are built atop existing massive user platforms, extending the platform’s user base, assets, and account systems onto the blockchain.
TON leverages Telegram’s communication network and social graph to build an integrated platform combining “on-chain accounts + wallets + content + AI tools.” While technically not the most advanced, TON benefits from Telegram’s status as a super gateway reaching 700 million users worldwide. It has already enabled real-world use cases such as USDT transfers, mini-game payments, ad commissions, and wallet-based authentication. In terms of building on-chain life infrastructure, TON leads in both deployment speed and user growth.
Base is Coinbase’s Layer 2 chain—an on-chain extension of Coinbase itself—emphasizing “compliance-friendliness” and “developer-friendliness.” It integrates Coinbase Wallet, exchange accounts, and KYC data, backed by strong U.S. regulatory alignment and technical community support. Base doesn’t chase technical extremes but aims to become the preferred platform for compliant smart contract deployments by U.S. crypto enterprises and institutions.
BNB Chain serves as Binance’s global trading ecosystem infrastructure—a tightly integrated commercial loop. Thanks to user inflows from Binance, BNB Chain enjoys high activity and abundant real transaction data. Binance even runs programs like “invest-to-onboard-users”: projects that bring millions of active users receive ecosystem incentives.
These “platform-native” chains aren’t designed for speculation—they aim to close the loop on user systems, payment rails, and asset pathways within their ecosystems. Their competitive advantage lies in user traffic itself, following the logic of “locking user assets to the platform via blockchain.”
Type 2: Developer-First Chains
Representatives: Solana, Polygon, Avalanche, Sui, Aptos
These chains were conceived from the start as general-purpose “operating systems” for developers, aiming to attract top-tier applications and engineering talent.
Solana exemplifies this category, emphasizing high performance and low fees. It thrives in emerging sectors like DePIN, blockchain gaming, NFTs, and on-chain AI. Though weakened during the 2022 FTX crisis, Solana rebounded in 2023 by championing its non-EVM ecosystem and attracting major new projects. Today, Solana hosts one of the most vibrant communities of on-chain entrepreneurs, supported by a full stack of tools—from Phantom wallet to Saga phone and Solana Pay.
Polygon leads Ethereum scaling efforts and excels in bridging Web2 and Web3. Its partnerships span Nike, Starbucks, Adobe, Stripe, Disney, and even the Indian government. Positioned around “developer-friendly, enterprise-ready, compliance-compatible” principles, Polygon focuses less on consumer traction and more on securing corporate collaboration channels.
Sui and Aptos originate from former Meta teams, featuring Move language, modular architecture, and finance-grade security—offering developer experiences and contract logic considered superior to Solidity. They’ve gained positive traction in developer communities in Southeast Asia and South Korea, though their ecosystems remain in early stages.
Avalanche emphasizes “subnet architecture,” allowing enterprises, governments, and organizations to deploy customized blockchains. It participates in multiple government-backed stablecoin and cross-border finance initiatives across the Americas, pioneering a “blockchain-as-a-service” (BaaS) model.
The ultimate goal for these chains is clear: whoever becomes the default platform for next-gen DApp development gains the chance to control the operating logic of the digital world—akin to how Android or Windows shaped computing eras.
Type 3: Payment-Driven, High-Frequency Utility Chains
Representatives: Tron, Stellar, Cosmos (some components)
These chains prioritize practicality over complexity—eschewing hype to focus squarely on settlement and payments.
Despite limited recognition in Western crypto circles, Tron functions as a true “payment artery” across Latin America, Africa, and South Asia. Its on-chain USDT volume remains consistently high, serving as the primary settlement channel for users excluded from traditional banking.
Stellar began as a “cross-border settlement network” similar to SWIFT, but lighter and faster. It focuses on integration with traditional financial institutions, promoting stablecoins as vehicles for international micro-clearing, and collaborates with numerous banks and governments.
Certain Cosmos-based chains (e.g., Kava, Osmosis) are also moving toward stablecoin and cross-chain payment use cases.
While their ecosystems may not be the most dynamic, these chains occupy vast real-world demand in areas underserved by financial infrastructure. For the unbanked population globally, they represent the only viable digital cash network.
Returning to the central question: Where does China stand in this infrastructure race?
Currently, there are very few widely adopted, mature, globally recognized public chains led by Chinese teams. Most Chinese chain projects suffer from unclear positioning, ambiguous product roadmaps, weak overseas compliance capacity, and lack of commercial viability. Many remain stuck at the stage of “whitepaper + tech demo + internal testnet,” far from large-scale real-world adoption.
Meanwhile, foreign chains are already integrating with banks, building payment networks, attracting developers, entering App Stores, and partnering with sovereign governments. This is no longer a contest of “who has cooler tech,” but of “who can turn blockchain into real-world financial infrastructure, application gateways, and identity credentials.”
If we fail to enter this arena soon, we risk missing a crucial window for system-level global competition—and perpetuate the subordination of Chinese internet firms within a “digital colonial system” dominated by foreign tech platforms: where accounts aren’t ours, payments aren’t ours, identity systems aren’t ours, and asset transfer paths aren’t ours.
Hence, the question is no longer “Should we build a chain?” but rather “Do we still have a chance to?” The opportunity window is narrowing rapidly, as the global order of on-chain infrastructure undergoes swift reorganization. If we don’t act now, in the future we’ll have no choice but to walk our own path on someone else’s road.
Conclusion: From Users to Builders—China Needs Its Own Foundational Network
For China’s internet sector, public blockchains are neither a novel fad nor a niche pursuit for a select group of founders. They represent a systemic industrial upgrade opportunity. This is not merely a Web3 issue—it is a decisive factor determining whether China’s digital economy can grow independently in the next phase.
Whether or not to build a chain is no longer a question for Web3 startups alone—it is a reality all of China’s internet industry must confront.
We can continue relying on others’ blockchains, adapting to their clearing systems, login protocols, and account rules—just as we’ve done for two decades with Android, Visa, and AWS. But as the global digital order begins to reconfigure, should we not participate in shaping the next generation of system-level rules? Can we build an infrastructure platform that not only serves domestic users but also secures a meaningful role in global digital collaboration?
Today, few are building chains in China. But the trend is unmistakable: whether communication platforms, financial institutions, e-commerce players, or content platforms—the world’s leading players are already reshaping their foundations through “chain + account + asset” architectures. And we now stand precisely at the threshold of whether we can join this round of infrastructure rebuilding.
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
