From Xianyang, Bitcoin and stablecoins took divergent paths
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
From Xianyang, Bitcoin and stablecoins took divergent paths
History has long proven that a currency capable of stable circulation is never due to "people liking it," but rather because "the system can support it."
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: Liu Honglin
During the Labor Day holiday, I drove along the Hexi Corridor and finally made my way back east to Xianyang.
Standing here, one can't help but recall those familiar names from textbooks—Banliang coins, Wuzhu coins, Chang'an, Han envoys to the Western Regions... If the Silk Road was a channel for civilizational exchange, then Xianyang was its origin— not just the starting point of the Silk Road, but also the original source of imperial value order.
Xianyang's role in history was that of an institutional initiator. It wasn't merely the capital of the Qin Empire, but the starting point of an entire system for "unifying measurements, standardizing credit, and organizing value circulation." Today's discussions around "stablecoins," "Bitcoin," and "on-chain settlement" may appear to be technological innovations, but they're really addressing age-old questions: Who issues money? How are prices set? What sustains consensus on value?
"Inheriting Qin" Stablecoins: Utility Above All
After unifying the six states, Qin’s first priority wasn’t taxation or expansion, but standardization—unified weights and measures, unified script, and of course, currency. The introduction of the "Banliang coin" represented a nationwide integration of monetary form and value standards, as well as a credit endorsement built upon administrative authority.
The Han dynasty further refined this system. In the early Western Han, multiple currency reforms culminated in the establishment of the "Wuzhu coin" as the national currency. Through border trade markets and gold-based settlements, the Han promoted its monetary system for foreign trade, forming the underlying currency layer of the Silk Road.
Looking at stablecoins today, the logic is strikingly similar. In many countries and regions, USDT is now seen as more stable than local fiat currencies—not because it holds greater political power, but because it has wider circulation, greater transparency, and lower transaction costs.
Isn’t this essentially a "Xianyang-level" functional node? It has no borders, but it has exchange rates; no emperor, but market consensus.
Currencies like USDT and USDC don’t rely on computational power or faith in "decentralization." Instead, they depend on pegging, audits, custody, and settlement efficiency—elements that collectively form a system, albeit not a state-run one, but a new version composed of on-chain standards, commercial consensus, and quasi-regulation.
This "new Xianyang" isn't maintained by terracotta warriors, city walls, or imperial edicts, but by blockchain addresses, transfer protocols, and the transactional habit of "you send, I acknowledge." It may not be legal, but it is practical; it may not be perfectly stable, yet it serves as a viable solution for most people in reality.
Its advantage lies precisely in not opposing all centralization like Bitcoin does, but selectively inheriting old systems and connecting with financial infrastructure, rapidly becoming mainstream in cross-border payments, gray-market finance, and exchange rate hedging.
In other words, it wasn't created for expression, but for use; not as currency for an ideal world, but as an interface for the real one. It's the digital era's "Wuzhu coin," prioritizing efficiency, compatibility, and universality—this isn't rebellion against the old order, but a digital replication of institutions.
"Anti-Qin" Bitcoin: Opposing All Centralization
Bitcoin’s logic stands almost entirely in opposition to institutional frameworks.
It recognizes neither nation-states nor central authorities, demanding no trust in any institution. What it seeks is precisely "trustlessness"—not accepting anything just because someone says so or prints it. Rules are written in code, verified across the network, immutable by anyone. Consensus relies on computational power, order on rules—its logic is extreme, its principles austere.
This design wasn't arbitrary; it reflects a response to long-standing problems in centralized monetary systems—a phenomenon not uncommon throughout history.
Toward the end of the Qin dynasty, fiscal strain led the court to quietly reduce the weight of Banliang coins. Though the face value remained unchanged, their actual metal content shrank significantly, causing market volatility and collapsing public trust. As recorded in Records of the Grand Historian: Book of Price Stabilization, "Coins varied in weight and authenticity, leaving people doubtful and distrustful." Once central credibility wavers, the entire monetary system collapses.
The early Han faced similar issues. Although the central government attempted to unify coinage rights, private minting flourished locally due to weak enforcement. As noted in Book of Han: Treatise on Food and Money, "Private coinage was widespread, banned but unstoppable," resulting in a chaotic mix of currencies and inconsistent standards, leaving民间 transactions nearly self-regulated. Li Zuojun pointed out in A Preliminary Study on Policy Mistakes in Han Dynasty Monetary Policy that the disconnect between centralized authority and execution caused state credit to become hollow and institutions ineffective.
Bitcoin is a thoroughly technologized response to this problem of "eroded trust and unmanageable institutions." Rather than trying to strengthen centralization, it aims to eliminate it entirely—relying not on states or commercial credit, but on rigid rule-based constraints.
It's indeed unsuitable for high-frequency payments, suffers from price volatility, and struggles to enter daily life. But it doesn't serve the mainstream—it provides a safety net for the margins. In scenarios of financial crisis, hyperinflation, or political turmoil, it offers unique "security."
It's not designed for convenience, but for escape; not to make systems run smoother, but to preserve options when total collapse occurs.
After Xianyang: The Freedom of Choice
"For a hundred generations, Qin's laws have prevailed." In a sense, we might say "Bitcoin is anti-Qin, while stablecoins inherit Qin." Bitcoin embodies deep distrust in "centralized corruption," while stablecoins represent a pragmatic response to "institutional evolution."
History has long proven that currencies achieving stable circulation do so not because "people like them," but because "institutions can uphold them." And institutions succeed not through ideals, but through rules, governance, and compatibility. Whether you issue coins by decree or write chains via code, that mechanism which "the majority accept" becomes your "institutional origin."
Today, these institutional origins have shifted from Chang'an and Washington to Tether settlement addresses, USDC audit reports, EVM-compatible interfaces, or some globally recognized on-chain stablecoin contract.
The legacy of Qin endures—but its castles have become protocols. And whether to inherit Qin or oppose Qin is ultimately a choice each user makes when clicking the "Send" button.
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
