History has long proven that the truly stable circulating currency is not because "everyone likes it," but because "the system can support it."

Written by: Liu Honglin

During the May Day holiday, I drove through the Hexi Corridor and finally headed east back to Xianyang.

Standing here, I 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 is a channel for the exchange of civilizations, then Xianyang is the starting point behind it—not just the departure point of the Silk Road, but also the origin of the imperial value order.

Xianyang's role in history was as a system initiator. It was not only the capital of the Qin Empire but also the starting point of a complete system for "unifying measurements, standardizing credit, and organizing value circulation." Today, when we talk about "stablecoins," "Bitcoin," and "on-chain settlement," they may seem like technological innovations, but they are still old problems: Who issues the currency, how is the price determined, and what maintains the consensus on value?

"Stablecoins inheriting from Qin": Practicality above all

After unifying the six states, the first thing Qin did was not to levy taxes or expand, but to standardize—unifying measurements, characters, and of course, currency. The introduction of "Banliang coins" was a nationwide integration of currency form and value standards, as well as a credit endorsement established based on administrative power.

The Han Dynasty further improved this structure. In the early Western Han period, there were multiple reforms of the currency system, ultimately establishing "Wuzhu coins" as the national currency, and through border trade and gold settlement mechanisms, promoted the currency system to serve foreign trade, forming the monetary foundation of the Silk Road.

Looking at stablecoins today, the logic is very similar. USDT is considered more stable than local fiat currencies in many countries and regions. It is not because it is politically stronger, but because it circulates more widely, has more transparent credit, and lower transaction costs.

Isn't this a "Xianyang-level" functional node? It has no borders, but it has exchange rates; no emperor, but it has market consensus.

Coins like USDT and USDC do not rely on computing power or the belief in "decentralization"; they rely on anchoring, auditing, custody, and settlement efficiency—these elements are actually a set of systems, but not a national system, rather a new version created by on-chain standards, commercial consensus, and quasi-regulation.

This "new type of Xianyang" is no longer maintained by terracotta warriors, city walls, and edicts, but runs on on-chain addresses, circulation protocols, and the transaction habit of "you transfer, I acknowledge." It may not be legal, but it is indeed practical; it may not be stable, but it is a solution that most people can use in reality.

Its advantage lies precisely in the fact that it does not "resist all centers" like Bitcoin, but selectively inherits the old system and connects to financial infrastructure, thus quickly becoming mainstream in scenarios like cross-border payments, gray finance, and exchange rate hedging.

In other words, it is not born to express, but to be used; not a chip for an ideal state, but an interface for the real world. It is like the "Wuzhu coins" of the digital age, emphasizing efficiency, compatibility, and universality—this is not a rebellion against the old order, but a digital rewriting of the system.

"Anti-Qin" Bitcoin: Against all centers

The logic of Bitcoin stands almost entirely in opposition to the system.

It does not recognize the state, does not set a center, and does not require you to "believe" in any institution. What it seeks is precisely "to de-trust"—do not trust that what anyone says counts, or that what anyone prints is real; the rules are written in code, verified by the entire network, and no one can change them. Consensus relies on computing power, order relies on rules, with extreme logic and cold principles.

This design is not a spur-of-the-moment idea; it reflects a response to the long-standing operational issues of centralized currency systems. And this problem is not uncommon in history.

In the late Qin period, financial strain led the court to quietly reduce the weight of "Banliang coins." Although the coin's face value did not change, its actual value severely shrank, causing market fluctuations and a collapse of public trust. The "Records of the Grand Historian" mentions "coins being heavy or light and not uniform, leading to public doubt and distrust," indicating that once central credit is shaken, the entire currency system also wavers.

The same was true in the early Han Dynasty. Although the central government attempted to unify the right to mint coins, local private minting was rampant, and enforcement was insufficient. The "Book of Han" states, "Many privately minted coins, despite prohibitions, did not cease," leading to a mixed variety of coins and inconsistent standards, with the informal trading system almost operating independently. Li Zuojun pointed out in "An Initial Exploration of the Missteps in Han Dynasty Monetary Policy" that the disconnection between the concentration of minting rights and enforcement led to a hollowing out of national credit and system failure.

Bitcoin is a completely technological response to the problem of "credit overflow + inability to control the system." It does not seek to strengthen the center but to eliminate it: not relying on the state, not relying on commercial credit, but solely on hard constraints of rules.

It is indeed not suitable for high-frequency payments, has significant price volatility, and is difficult to integrate into daily life. But it is not meant to serve the mainstream; it is meant to provide a safety net for the margins—in scenarios of financial crises, hyperinflation, and political turmoil, it has its unique "safety."

It is not designed for convenience, but for escape; not to make the system smoother, but to provide leeway when everything is completely out of control.

After Xianyang: The freedom of choice

For centuries, the Qin legal system has been followed, and to some extent, we can say "Bitcoin is anti-Qin, while stablecoins are pro-Qin." Bitcoin is a profound distrust of "centralization will corrupt," while stablecoins are a realistic response to "the system needs to evolve."

History has long proven that the truly stable circulating currency is not because "everyone likes it," but because "the system can support it." And the reason the system can support it is not ideals, but rules, governance, and compatibility. Whether you mint currency through decrees or write code on chains, the mechanism that "most people recognize" is your "system origin."

And now, those system origins have shifted from Chang'an and Washington to Tether's settlement addresses, USDC's audit reports, EVM-compatible interfaces, or some globally recognized on-chain stablecoin contracts.

The legacy of Qin still exists, just transformed from city walls to protocols. The choice to inherit from Qin or oppose Qin is, in fact, the choice each user makes when they hit the "send" button.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。