Fu Peng’s mute button—pressed in the wrong place
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Fu Peng’s mute button—pressed in the wrong place
Several practices developed over 15 years in traditional finance do not work in the crypto space.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsBy Zhang Peng, TechFlow
Within his first week entering the crypto space, an economist began mass-blocking accounts on Twitter.
This was arguably the most intriguing topic across crypto Twitter this past weekend. Fu Peng—the economist who lost his domestic social media accounts after speaking uncomfortable truths and built immense credibility around his image as a “persecuted independent economist”—has started systematically blocking crypto-native accounts that question him, following his official debut as Chief Economist of Nova Wallet Group.
The news immediately ignited the community. Some shared screenshots; others mocked him outright. A few even bluntly compared the move to “a project team blacklisting users en masse before rug-pulling.”
The act itself is not illegal.
Everyone has the right to curate their own timeline—but when this action occurs at an exceptionally sensitive juncture, within an exceptionally unique industry, and by an exceptionally contradictory figure, it becomes something worth discussing seriously.
Who Is He?
In traditional finance circles, Fu Peng built his reputation on one thing: speaking candidly.
His speech at HSBC Private Banking—on middle-class contraction, weak demand, and structural recession—leaked online, got repeatedly deleted, yet still circulated for months via mirror accounts. Shortly thereafter, his WeChat and short-video platform accounts were all suspended. In an environment where most opted for “strategic silence,” he stood on stage and voiced unwelcome truths—and paid the price.
That took integrity. And precisely because of it, he cultivated a loyal audience—not necessarily because his theoretical frameworks are exceptionally sophisticated, but because he publicly stakes out positions, even when doing so makes him personally uncomfortable.
Last year, Fu Peng underwent surgery. This year, he re-emerged as Chief Economist of Nova Wallet Group.
On April 20, the appointment was officially announced—and Nova’s stock surged over 22% that day. On April 23, he took the stage at Hong Kong Web3 Carnival, delivering his first public speech since joining the crypto industry. There, he introduced the “FICC+C” framework, integrating crypto assets into the traditional fixed-income, foreign-exchange, and commodities (FICC) asset-allocation system—and argued that Bitcoin has evolved from an early-stage “faith asset” into a compliant, institutionally allocable commodity. The speech was well-structured, conceptually clear, and grounded in solid historical analogies.
It was a strong entrance.
Then he started blocking people.
A Collision of Two Systems
To understand what’s happening, we must first grasp two fundamentally different trust operating systems.
In the traditional FICC world, trust is built through institutional endorsement, formal credentials, and curated interactions. Your title—e.g., “Chief Economist at X firm”—the research reports you publish, the caliber of conferences you attend—all contribute to your credibility. Simultaneously, you’re entitled to manage your information environment: avoiding discussions with retail investors or declining to respond to challenging public questions is not only normal—it’s often seen as a mark of professionalism. Fu Peng has long practiced this. It’s said he repeatedly removed WeChat contacts and purged early supporters between 2021 and 2024—a habit that raised no eyebrows in traditional finance, earning at most the label “this person is rather aloof.”
The crypto world’s trust system operates on entirely different foundations.
The SBF episode left behind more than just a $10 billion hole—it also instilled a systemic immune response: external authority carries near-zero, if not negative, weight, because the brighter the halo, the more suspect the motives. Entering this industry, no matter how many titles you hold off-chain, your credibility is updated publicly—daily. What you say matters less than what you do: Is your portfolio transparent? Do you stay engaged during the worst market conditions? When the assets you’ve publicly endorsed crash 80%, do you publicly own your analysis and its consequences? Those are the metrics that count.
The crypto industry has evolved antibodies—through repeated exploitation by celebrities and academics.
So when Fu Peng applies the default setting of traditional FICC—“filtering noise, curating interactions”—to his crypto Twitter account, it seems perfectly reasonable from his perspective. He serves institutional clients; Nova Wallet Group positions itself as an “institution-grade compliant digital finance platform.” To him, the chaotic, noisy crypto Twitter feed is simply interference.
But from the crypto-native perspective, it sends precisely the wrong signal: “I’m here to broadcast—not to be tested.”
Both systems have internal logic—but they are incompatible.
What Is the Passport Here?
Here’s a possibly uncomfortable judgment: Fu Peng chose the right direction in entering this space.
Macroeconomists are scarce in crypto. Those who genuinely understand FICC logic—and bring mature asset-allocation frameworks to redefine crypto’s place in portfolios—can meaningfully advance the industry’s institutionalization. His assertion in the speech—that crypto’s first half is over and the second half is about institutionalization and compliance—is, in my view, both directionally and timely correct.
He was also refreshingly candid: Early on, he abstained from “faith-based trading” because “real capital won’t overcommit during phases of insufficient certainty.” That’s honest—and professionally sound—far surpassing many traditional finance figures who rush in merely to pump and dump.
Yet professional insight and openness to scrutiny are not mutually exclusive.
Whether CZ, Vitalik, or Fu Peng’s own bosses Li Lin and Du Jun—they’ve all faced criticism and public testing on Twitter.
Vitalik publishes long self-critical essays every few years, openly acknowledging Ethereum’s early design flaws. They each have flaws—but share one core trait: they can be tested.
That’s the passport to this space.
If Fu Peng wants to truly establish himself here, it won’t be by cleaning up his timeline with the block button—but by making his next public, testable prediction. He now says the macro bear market may persist through year-end and advises institutions to control exposure and wait. Fine—this claim can be verified by the market. If right, credibility accrues. If wrong, he explains why, updates his framework, and tries again.
That’s what this space recognizes and respects.
The habits Fu Peng brought from traditional finance may need updating here.
Not his professional competence or macro framework—those are his strengths and precisely why he adds value. What needs updating is the unspoken assumption hiding behind the block button: “I am entitled to control who gets to speak to me.”
In traditional finance, that’s a sign of status. In crypto, it’s a trust tax.
He said in his speech: “The paradigmatic thinking you’ve grown familiar with over the past 15 years may undergo massive change.”
That sentence could be returned to him verbatim: “Some of the habits you formed over 15 years in traditional finance won’t work here either.”
One such trivial habit is this very act of blocking.
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
深潮TechFlow
