Written by: Zhang Peng, Deep Tide TechFlow

In the first week of entering the crypto space, the economist began using the block function to clean up Twitter.

This is probably the most interesting topic in crypto Twitter this weekend. Fu Peng, the person who was banned domestically for speaking the truth and built a huge reputation with the image of an "independent economist under persecution," started blocking accounts that questioned him in large numbers after officially appearing as the chief economist of New Fire Group.

Once the news broke, the community exploded. Some took screenshots, some mocked, and some directly said that this operation looked like “the project party blacklisting users en masse before running away.”

The operation itself is not illegal.

Everyone has the right to decide who can appear on their timeline, but this action occurred at an extremely sensitive juncture, in a very special industry, on a person who is extremely contradictory, thus it became something worth discussing seriously.

Who is he?

In the traditional finance circle, Fu Peng's reputation is built on one thing: the courage to speak.

That speech at HSBC Private Banking discussed the shrinking middle class, insufficient demand, and structural recession. After the content leaked, it was deleted multiple times, yet it circulated in mirrored accounts for months. Subsequently, all his WeChat and short video platform accounts were banned. In an environment where everyone generally chose "strategic silence," he stood on stage and voiced some unpopular truths, for which he paid the price.

This act had integrity. Consequently, he accumulated a genuine audience that recognized him, not because of the intricacy of his theoretical framework but for his willingness to publicly take a stand, even if that stance made him uncomfortable.

Last year, after undergoing surgery, Fu Peng restarted this year as the chief economist of New Fire Group.

On April 20, the announcement was made, and New Fire's stock price surged over 22% that day. On April 23, he took the stage at the Hong Kong Web3 Carnival, delivering his first public speech since joining the crypto space, where he introduced the "FICC+C" framework, incorporating crypto assets into the allocation system of traditional fixed income, foreign exchange, and commodities, asserting that Bitcoin has evolved from an early "faith asset" to a compliant product that can be allocated by institutions. The quality of the speech was good, the framework clear, and the historical comparisons solid.

This was a beautiful entry.

Then he started blocking people.

The Collision of Two Systems

To understand this matter, one must first understand the two completely different trust operating systems.

In the world of traditional FICC, trust is built like this: institutional endorsement, credential certification, and selective interaction. Who you are the chief of, what research report you issue, what level of meetings you attend—these constitute your credibility. At the same time, you have the right to control your information environment; if you do not want to discuss with retail investors or respond to challenging public questions, that is perfectly normal and even a reflection of professionalism. Fu Peng had this habit in the past; it is said that between 2021 and 2024, he repeatedly deleted WeChat friends and cleared early supporters. In the traditional finance circle, this is not news; it's at most "this person is relatively aloof."

The trust system in the crypto space, however, is fundamentally different.

The case of SBF has left this industry not just with a $10 billion hole, but also a systematic immune mechanism: external authority is roughly equal to zero, and might even be negative, because the greater the halo, the more suspicious motives arise. In this industry, no matter how many titles you have off-chain, your credibility is updated in public every day. What you say is not important; what you do, whether your holdings are transparent, whether you remain present during the worst market conditions, and whether you take public responsibility for your judgments when things you are bullish on drop 80%—these are the dimensions that count.

The crypto industry has evolved an antibody after being harvested time and again by celebrities and professors.

Thus, Fu Peng uses the traditional FICC's default value of "filtering noise and selecting interactions" to operate his Twitter in the crypto space; from his perspective, it is entirely reasonable. He has always served institutional large clients, and New Fire Group is also positioned as "institution-grade compliant digital finance," so for him, the bustling crypto Twitter is just a source of distraction.

However, from the crypto system's perspective, this is a wrong signal: I am here to output, not to be tested.

Both systems have their own logic, but they are incompatible.

What is the passport here?

Here’s a judgment that might make people uncomfortable: Fu Peng's direction in entering this space is correct.

Macroeconomists are scarce in the crypto industry. Those who truly understand FICC logic coming in to do research and redefining the position of crypto assets with a mature asset allocation framework have substantial significance for the institutionalization process of the industry. The judgment he made in his speech—that the first half of the crypto industry has ended, and the second half is about institutionalization and compliance—is, I believe, the right direction and timing.

He candidly noted: in the early days, he did not participate in faith trading because "true capital will not over-involve during stages of uncertainty." This is the truth and a genuinely professional perspective, far superior to many traditional financiers who come to shout picks.

However, a professional perspective and accepting criticism are not mutually exclusive.

Whether it’s CZ, Vitalik, or Fu Peng's boss Li Lin and Du Jun, they have all faced criticism and scrutiny on Twitter.

Vitalik writes a long self-critique every few years, acknowledging the early design flaws of Ethereum. Each of them has their own issues, but the commonality is: they can be scrutinized.

This is the passport of the crypto space.

If Fu Peng wants to truly establish himself here, it will not be by clearing his timeline with the block function, but through the next open and verifiable prediction. He currently states that the macro bear market may last until the end of the year, suggesting institutions control their positions and wait—this judgment can be validated by the market. If he is right, credibility comes; if he is wrong, he explains the reason, updates the framework, and tries again.

This is what this circle recognizes.

The habits Fu Peng brought from the traditional circle may need to be updated here.

It’s not to say that his professional ability or macro framework has problems; these are his strengths and the value he brings here. What needs updating is the underlying assumption hidden behind the block function: I have the right to control who can talk to me.

In traditional finance, this reflects status. In the crypto space, it consumes trust.

In his speech, he said, "The paradigms you have been familiar with for the past 15 years may undergo significant changes."

This statement can also be returned to him verbatim: some things you learned in traditional finance for 15 years do not work here.

One of the boring things is this blocking action.