A strange misalignment is happening in the on-chain world.
On one side is the 'revival narrative' of the infrastructure layer: main chain expansion, the return of privacy computation, and traditional financial clearing systems tentatively migrating on-chain, as if a new wave of crypto is brewing.
On the other side, there is an increasingly strong sense of loss among most participants: prices no longer fulfill faith, narratives no longer generate wealth, and the so-called 'bull market' seems to be open only to a few.
The problem may not lie in technology but in the fundamental changes in participant structure.
Institutional time vs Retail time ⏳
The world of institutions does not have 'get-rich cycles.'
They can accept a ten-year decision window, accept extremely low annualized returns, and steadily extract small price differences through scale, leverage, and structured tools. Retail investors, on the other hand, do not enter this industry for an annualized 8%, but to 'change their fate.'
When these two time scales overlap in the same market, the outcome is almost predetermined:
The chain may be getting busier, but most people are finding it increasingly difficult to make money.
This also explains why these phenomena are occurring simultaneously but are not contradictory:
The cyclical narrative of Bitcoin is gradually becoming ineffective.
The season of altcoins no longer arrives automatically.
Young investors are turning to traditional assets.
The influence of centralized trading platforms is declining but becoming more conservative.
When risk becomes a systemic issue, all 'entrances' will choose self-preservation. Capital efficiency being sacrificed is just a matter of time.
Decentralization was not initially intended for wealth 💻
Early cypherpunks did not discuss prices.
They are discussing two things:
First, how to eliminate intermediaries; second, how to minimize trust.
Decentralization means that the production and verification of value do not rely on the state, banks, or gold, but on verifiable computation and chronological order.
Decentralization means that strangers do not need social relationships to collaborate safely.
In this context, Bitcoin is referred to as a 'pocket computer,' while Ethereum is seen as a 'general-purpose computer.' Smart contracts, automatic execution, and immutability were once considered the foundation of next-generation social cooperation.
But history quickly gave a real response.
When 'individuals' exit the production system ⚙️
Scalability has never been purely a technical issue.
As the main chain continues to expand, the operating costs of full nodes are constantly rising, and the ideal of 'anyone can participate' is gradually becoming expensive. Whether it's the computational power competition or staking thresholds, it essentially excludes 'ordinary individuals' from the production system.
The result is:
Bitcoin has preserved minimalist governance but has lost the imaginative space of smart contracts.
Ethereum has preserved smart contracts but has gradually sacrificed the personalization of nodes.
This is not anyone's moral failure but the inevitable compromise of scaled systems in reality.
World computer or financial hub? 🧮
Narratives and demand often do not align.
The narrative of Bitcoin is payment, but the demand is for value storage.
The narrative of Ethereum is 'computing everything,' but real demand is highly concentrated in financial activities.
When the value of a network primarily comes from transaction frequency and fees, it inevitably gravitates towards SaaS or financial infrastructure. This model can capture value but struggles to carry the grand vision of 'computing everything.'
More critically, as non-financial users gradually exit, the value support will become exceptionally fragile.
Intermediaries have not disappeared; they have just changed form 🔄
Decentralization has not eliminated intermediaries; it has only made them 'protocolized.'
The problem is that when an ecosystem increasingly relies on coordination, guidance, and resource allocation, a de facto power center will inevitably emerge. Even if it remains decentralized in theory, it will form 'trust anchors' in practice.
This is not necessarily a conspiracy but a natural result of organizational efficiency.
The real danger is not the existence of intermediaries, but that intermediaries bear order, narrative, and benefit distribution.
Stablecoins are becoming the new 'intermediate assets' 💵
An emerging trend is:
In the on-chain world, stablecoins are gradually replacing native tokens, becoming the core of actual circulation and pricing.
They have improved efficiency but also brought new dependencies on centralization. When native assets are reduced to the roles of 'collateral' and 'fee fuel,' their value logic will be repeatedly questioned.
This forces the main chain to make a choice:
Is it completely open, sacrificing its own value capture?
Should we reclaim power or strengthen the position of the main chain?
There is no perfect solution.
What we have truly lost may not be wealth 💔
Many people think the problem is that prices are no longer rising.
But the deeper pain comes from another matter:
We originally hoped to use the wealth effect to fill the void left by the gradual loosening of faith.
When prices no longer save beliefs, decentralization is left with the cold, hard reality of engineering.
Neither romantic nor liberating.
Thus, the question becomes:
If one cannot achieve freedom or prosperity, is it all worth it?
Look forward, not backward 🌒
History will not pause for any narrative.
Today's mainstream public chains may have transformed from 'rebels' into 'reformists within the system.' They are still important, but no longer pure. They must summon the ideal while compromising with reality.
Decentralization and the wealth effect may both be buried by history.
What remains is a colder, more engineered, and also more brutal future on the chain.
The real question is not 'should we reminisce about the past,'
But rather—who can see the next opportunity in the new structure?
