Author: Liu Honglin
During the May Day holiday, I drove along the Hexi Corridor and finally drove east all the way back to Xianyang.
Standing here, I will unconsciously recall those familiar names in textbooks - half-liang coins, five-zhu 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 only the starting point of the Silk Road, but also the origin of the imperial value order.
Xianyang's role in history is to be a system starter. It is not only the capital of the Qin Empire, but also the starting point of a whole system of "unified measurement, standardized credit, and organized value circulation". Today, we are talking about "stable currency", "bitcoin", and "on-chain clearing". Although it seems to be a technological innovation, it is still the same old problem: who issues the currency, how is the price determined, and how is the consensus on value maintained?
Chengqin's stablecoin: practicality trumps everything
After Qin unified the six kingdoms, the first thing it did was not to expand taxation, but to standardize - standardize weights and measures, standardize writing, and of course, currency. The introduction of the "half-liang coin" was a nationwide integration of currency forms and value standards, and also a credit endorsement based on administrative power.
The Han Dynasty further improved this structure. In the early years of the Western Han Dynasty, the currency system was reformed many times, and the "Wuzhu Coin" was finally established as the national currency. Through border trade and gold settlement mechanisms, the currency system was promoted to serve foreign trade, forming the monetary foundation of the Silk Road.
Looking at stablecoins today, the logic is actually very similar. In many countries and regions, USDT is even considered more stable than local fiat currencies. This is not because it is politically stronger, but because it has a wider circulation, more transparent credit, and lower transaction costs.
You say this is not a "Xianyang-level" functional node? It has no borders, but it has exchange rates; it has no emperor, but it has market tacit understanding.
Coins like USDT and USDC do not rely on computing power or the belief in "decentralization". Instead, they rely on anchoring, auditing, custody, and clearing efficiency. Behind these elements, there is actually a set of systems, but it is not a national system. Rather, it is a new version that combines on-chain standards, business consensus, and quasi-regulation.
This "new Xianyang" is no longer maintained by terracotta warriors, city walls and imperial edicts, but by on-chain addresses, circulation protocols and the trading habits of "you transfer money and I recognize it". 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, unlike Bitcoin, it does not "fight against all centers", but selectively takes over the old system and connects with financial infrastructure, thus quickly becoming mainstream in scenarios such as cross-border payments, gray finance, and exchange rate hedging.
In other words, it is not born for expression, but for use; it is not a bargaining chip for an ideal country, but an interface for the real world. It is like the "five-zhu coin" of the digital age, emphasizing efficiency, compatibility and universality - this is not a rebellion against the old order, but a digital copy of the system.
Bitcoin against Qin: Fighting against all centers
The logic of Bitcoin is almost completely opposed to the system.
It does not recognize the state, does not set up a center, and does not require you to "trust" any organization. What it wants is precisely "trustlessness" - do not believe that anyone's words are final, and anyone's prints are true. The rules are written in the code, verified by the entire network, and no one can change them. Consensus relies on computing power, order relies on rules, logic is extreme, and principles are cold.
This design is not something that was made on the spur of the moment. It is a response to the long-term operational problems of the centralized monetary system. This problem is not uncommon in history.
In the late Qin Dynasty, when finances were tight, the imperial court quietly reduced the weight of the "half-liang coin". Although the face value of the coin remained the same, it actually shrank significantly, causing fluctuations in the market value and a collapse of people's trust. The "Historical Records: Book of Price Stabilization" mentioned that "the weight of the coins was not uniform, and the people were suspicious and untrustworthy". It can be seen that once the central credit was shaken, the entire currency system would also be shaken.
The same was true in the early Han Dynasty. Although the central government tried to unify the right to mint coins, private minting was prevalent in local areas and the enforcement was insufficient. "Han Shu·Shihuo Zhi" wrote that "there are many private minters, and they cannot be stopped despite the ban." The currencies were mixed and the standards were different. The private transaction system was almost running on its own. Li Zuojun pointed out in "A Preliminary Study on the Mistakes in Monetary Policy in the Han Dynasty" that the concentration of the right to mint coins was out of touch with the execution, which led to the idleness of the national credit and the failure of the system.
Bitcoin is a completely technological response to the problem of "credit overflow + uncontrollable system". It does not try to strengthen the center, but to cancel it: it does not rely on the state, does not rely on commercial credit, but only on hard constraints of rules.
It is indeed not suitable for high-frequency payments, has large price fluctuations, and is difficult to integrate into daily life. However, it does not serve the mainstream, but serves the marginalized - in the scenarios of financial crisis, hyperinflation, and political turmoil, it has its unique "security".
It is not for ease of use, but for escape; it is not for making the system smoother, but for leaving room for maneuver when everything gets out of control.
After Xianyang: Freedom of Choice
All dynasties followed the Qin Dynasty's political system and laws. To some extent, we can say that "Bitcoin is anti-Qin, and stablecoins are in line with Qin." Bitcoin is a deep distrust of "the center will be corrupted", and stablecoins are a realistic response to "the system must evolve."
History has long proven that the currency that can truly circulate stably is never because "everyone likes it", but because "the system can support it". And the reason why the system can support it is not based on ideals, but on rules, governance and compatibility. Whether you mint coins by government decrees or write chains by code, the mechanism that "most people recognize" is your "system origin".
Now, those institutional origins have shifted from Chang'an and Washington to Tether clearing addresses, USDC audit reports, EVM-compatible interfaces, or on-chain stablecoin contracts recognized by global users.
The Qin legacy is still there, it has just changed from a city to an agreement. Whether to accept Qin or to resist Qin is actually a choice made by each user when clicking the "Send" button.
