Starting from Xi'an, Bitcoin and stablecoin have taken two different paths.

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

Author: Liu Honglin

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

Standing here, one can't help but recall those familiar names from textbooks—Banliang coin, Wuzhu coin, 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.

The role of Xianyang in history was that of a system initiator. It was not just 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 of value?

"Cheng Qin" Stablecoin: Practicality Over Everything

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

The Han Dynasty further improved this structure. In the early years of the Western Han, the currency system was reformed multiple times, ultimately establishing the "Wuzhu coin" as the national circulating currency. Through mechanisms such as border trade and gold settlement, the currency system was promoted to serve foreign trade, forming the monetary foundation of the Silk Road.

Looking at stablecoins again today, the logic is actually very similar. USDT is considered to be more stable than local fiat currency in many countries and regions. This is not because it is politically stronger, but because it has a wider circulation, more transparent credit, and lower transaction costs.

Are you saying this is not a "Xianyang-class" functional node? It has no borders, but it has exchange rates; no emperor, but it has market consensus.

USDT, USDC these coins do not rely on computing power, nor on the belief in "decentralization"; they rely on anchoring, auditing, custody, and clearing efficiency—behind these elements is actually a set of systems, but they are not national systems; rather, they are a new version produced by a combination of 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 rather by on-chain addresses, circulation protocols, and the transaction habits 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 "fight against all centers" like Bitcoin, but selectively integrates with 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 was not born for expression, but for use; it is not the chips of an ideal state, but an interface of 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 rewriting of the system.

"Anti-Qin" Bitcoin: Against All Centralization

The logic of Bitcoin is almost completely opposed to the system.

It does not recognize nations, does not set a center, and does not require you to "believe" any institution. What it wants is precisely to "disbelieve"—do not trust what anyone says is valid, or what anyone prints is true; 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 something that was conceived on a whim; 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, the finances were tight, and the court quietly reduced the weight of the "banliang coin." Although the coin's face value appeared unchanged, its actual value severely shrank, causing fluctuations in the market coin value and a collapse of public trust. The "Records of the Grand Historian: Book of Equalization" mentions that "the weight of coins is not uniform, and the people are suspicious and untrusting," showing that once central credit is shaken, the entire coin system will also be destabilized.

The same was true at the beginning of the Han dynasty. Although the central government attempted to unify the coinage authority, local private minting was prevalent, and enforcement was insufficient. The "Book of Han: Treatise on Food and Money" states that "there are many private mints, and despite prohibitions, they continue," resulting in a mix of coin types and inconsistent standards, with the grassroots trading system operating almost independently. Li Zuo-Jun pointed out in "Exploration of the Initial Errors in Han Dynasty Monetary Policy" that the disconnection between the concentration of minting authority and its execution led to the empty circulation of national credit and the failure of the system.

Bitcoin is a thorough technological response to the problem of "credit overflow + institutional control failure." It does not attempt to strengthen the center but rather seeks to eliminate it: relying not on the state, not on commercial credit, but solely 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. But it is not meant for mainstream service; it is for the marginalized to rely on - in scenarios of financial crises, hyperinflation, and political turmoil, it has its unique "safety."

It is not meant to be user-friendly, but rather to enable escape; it is not for making the system smoother, but for allowing some room when it is completely out of control.

After Xianyang: The Freedom of Choice

The Qin legal system has been in place for hundreds of generations. To some extent, we can say that "Bitcoin is anti-Qin, while stablecoins are pro-Qin." Bitcoin represents a profound distrust of "centralization will corrupt," whereas stablecoins are a realistic response to "institutions must evolve."

History has long proven that the truly stable circulating currency is not because "everyone likes it," but because "the system can support it." The reason the system can support it is not based on ideals, but on rules, governance, and compatibility. Whether you mint coins through government orders or write chains through code, the mechanism recognized by the "majority" is the "institutional origin" you belong to.

And now, those institutional origins have shifted from Chang'an and Washington to Tether's settlement addresses, USDC audit reports, EVM-compatible interfaces, or a blockchain stablecoin contract recognized by global users.

The legacy of Qin still exists, it has just transformed from city walls into agreements. Choosing to support Qin or oppose Qin is actually the decision each user makes when they hit the "send" button.