进入2026，最近看到Talk挺热闹，趁机想探讨下这个话题，假如明天一片繁荣牛市就来临，CKB做好准备了吗，该向饥渴的市场展现出什么样子的CKB及阐述自己愿景呢？有哪些是我们在技术需要向市场输出和传导的？有哪些时团队需要发力扩充的？又有哪些是社区该去共同去维护和推进的呢？
随便也说下我对市场接下来可能的方向看法，可能考虑不周 欢迎指正，我感觉接下来市场机会整体可能转向三个大方向：
1.归顺现有金融体系的加密，这是在美国监管推行下有序发展的，如稳定币，支付，RWA等，华尔街们可能自建厂地，或在现有场地里招安KYC来做，总之这块是搏人际能力而不是搏技术能力的地方。
2.原生加密，这是极度信奉去中心化加密精神的，如POW, 隐私赛道等，当前这块是处于被压缩状态，但我相信当1发展的越极端就是给2腾出更大的空间，其实这块一直是有一定的强需求，总有一些东西是不想被监控或走明账的，最早的加密也是从这块需求发展起来的。
3.没有明确定位的加密，这块可能是大多数项目无奈的选择，它介于1和2之间，可能没有1的人脉，也没有2的技术偏执，只能介于1和2之间，更多的会是去仿效1 来吸收1的溢出，或者来做1的先后衔接模块。
我相信1和2中都是可以出超级平台的，且能享受一定蓝海空间（2可能会出现一定监管风波），3可能永远是在红海中不断竞争而生存。
那问题来了，CKB是要做哪类呢？或说想成为哪类？ 想成为1 ，从这几年做事风格和人员配置上看，显然是不太适合（除非CN放开，可能还有那么一点点的可能）。要想成为2，感觉也是要经历磨难的一条路，它需要在加密圈里屏蔽市场的喧嚣，坚守且不断的传播自己理念，这可能要经历一定寂寞期。要成为3，觉得就要时刻做好准备和竞争，可以有自己的方向但不偏执；有自己理念但不过于执着；需要对市场敏感，但不是说就要时刻跟随市场热点，而是要懂得和把控市场，能在黎明前还不那么喧闹的时刻就向市场洒下自己的理念和标签，当繁荣到来让其成为社区的力量（一直觉得之前CKB的节奏总是慢市场半拍），需要懂得市场需求来适应市场，只有当在市场上争夺了一定的空间，才能让自己的理想和理念发挥出来。
You know, Fiber is a step in that direction: channels (before being closed) are very private. Just Fiber utility is currently low, that’s the current biggest issue. Only green root adoption can fix that.
Rosen can help by opening up more avenues with its cross chain tokens, which Fiber can build upon.
Love & Peace, Phroi
what do you think about DWA?
Digital World Assets
Based on your classification, I would personally choose 2 Native Crypto because fully supporting Uncensorable is the fundmantal key of crypto, and the real protection of individual property rights.
Integrating into the mainstream financial system, embracing regulation, and making pragmatic compromises is what both crypto captical and tranditional capital want to see. Crypto captial gains a “safe exit” and compliant liquidity, while traditional captical acquires yet another instrument for extracting value from individuals. In some case, crypto captical even turns around and becomes the regulator itself(we have seen it).
And, given the inherent greed of politicians and financial institutions, any crypto that integrates into their system will inevitably mutate into a freak Crypto in appearance, but a tool of control in essence
A brilliant book review in China
水浒传妙就妙在招安
But honestly saying, sticking to Native Crypto is harder than it was in the early days. Captical is pusing 1 at scale. Traditional captical, and regulatory machine have now entered the crypto space, squeezing native crypto. They distort markets, warp incentive structures and narratives, sponsor agents. In such an environment, its quite suffering to keep on native crypto.
Back to myself, I will remain in native crypto, but also try path 3 to validate my idea.
I like the analysis and it makes a lot of sense. Thanks for sharing!
That said, I think the real question should be for each actor, not for CKB: What do you want CKB to be, and what will you do to make it happen?
What CKB ultimately shows will be the combined efforts of all actors. I expect the final outcome to be a blend of all the categories you mentioned. Bitcoin started with a strong cypherpunk identity (your category 2) but later evolved into a mixture. That’s inevitable, since both Bitcoin and CKB are open, permissionless systems where anyone can participate and shape them as they wish. Crypto maximalists and mass adoption advocates coexist within the Bitcoin ecosystem. Even if we agreed today that CKB should follow path X instead of Y, someone else could still pursue Y—and proposals aligned with Y would continue to receive support from its believers. In the end, what CKB becomes will depend on all these directions—X, Y, and others—and their relative influence in this open ecosystem.
So back to myself. I’m not a financial guy or regulatory expert so I don’t work on direction 1, but that doesn’t mean others can’t. I believe in crypto because I think it’s the only way to guarantee individual rights in digital space. I don’t think crypto is just new tools escaping from regulatory or government, although I agree it’s unignorable part of crypto, so I don’t work on direction 2. I want to see web5 being built on CKB, consisting of new social networks with individual data sovereignty, private payments with Fiber, AI agents pay to use user owned data and sustain themselves by earning UDTs in Fiber channels, values created through human/machine collaboration and distributed through smart contracts and channels. Web5 is a clear positioning in the middle between “crypto is black markets” and “crypto bows to wall street”, it’s not in category 3 either. That’s what I’m currently working and will work on. As I said above, it’s just one thing happening in CKB too, others are working on other things.
Back to myself—I’m not a finance or regulatory expert, so I don’t work on direction 1 (and that doesn’t mean others can’t). I believe in crypto because it’s the only way to truly protect individual rights in the digital world. I don’t see crypto merely as tools for evading regulation or government control—though that aspect is undeniably part of it—so I’m not pursuing direction 2 either.
What I want to see is Web5 built on CKB: new social networks based on personal data sovereignty, private payments powered by Fiber, AI agents paying to access user-owned data and sustaining themselves by earning UDTs through Fiber channels, and value created through human–machine collaboration distributed via smart contracts and channels. In digital space platforms are the new lords, sometimes even more powerful than governments and regulators. Crypto can help us fight platforms too.
Web5 positions CKB at “crypto against platforms”, neither “crypto are black markets” nor “crypto bows to Wall Street.” It doesn’t fit into your category 3 either. That’s what I’m working on now—and will continue working on. As mentioned earlier, this is just one of many things happening within CKB; others are exploring different directions too.
I also believe the “mix” will shift over time, as described in Geeks, MOPs, and Sociopaths in Subculture Evolution (and as one sharp observer noted, it’s probably just “Crossing the Chasm” from another angle). We’ve seen this with Bitcoin and Ethereum. Linux once stood firmly against Microsoft—there were fierce debates on Slashdot.org (good old times :-))—and Microsoft tried various ways to undermine it. Today, Windows directly supports Linux. So I don’t view Bitcoin’s move into the mainstream and Wall Street as “acceptance of amnesty and enlistment” (in chinese “招安”). It simply means some people within the Bitcoin ecosystem decided it was time to collaborate with Wall Street and regulators—and they succeeded. Bitcoin remains an autonomous collective of diverse participants.
我觉得，被选择和主动献媚是两回事。
BTC ETF通过后，协议层没改代码，没有为合规加后门。是华尔街学习如何运行全节点、如何做冷存储。是他们来适应规则，不是规则为他们弯腰。或者像那句话说的：是特朗普需要Crypto，不是Crypto需要特朗普。
招安是另一回事。招安是为了获得正统性承认而主动阉割核心价值。宋江上山前就想着招安，上山后不断压制真正想反抗的人，最后带着兄弟去打方腊，用自己人的血换朝廷一纸封赏。英文社区的bro可以类比萨鲁曼。他本是反索伦联盟的领袖，白袍巫师，但他通过真知晶球窥视敌人后，认定抵抗无望，主动选择合作，还试图说服甘道夫一起"识时务"。甘道夫拒绝了。宋江和萨鲁曼的共同点是：原本站在抵抗者一边的核心人物，主动选择投靠，理由是"务实"。区别在于，甘道夫没有被说服，而梁山上没人拦得住宋江。
所以招安的前提是存在一个有权代表整体去投降的人。
抽象一下这个问题：在一个网络里，谁有权代表它？如果答案是没有人，这个系统才具备抗招安的结构性条件。Bitcoin不能被招安，因为没有宋江，没有萨鲁曼。任何人想投降只能投降他自己。
相比问"我们要不要走向主流"，我觉得更值得反复自省的是：如果有人想代表我们去被招安，他能不能做到？答案如果是能，那不管今天的理想多纯粹，招安的结构性风险就一直存在。
当然也有人会想，能被招安挺好的。那还可以问自己：如果有人代表这个网络做了交易，而那个交易和我的诉求完全相反，我能接受吗？我能fork，还是只能离开？
I figure being chosen is not the same as acceptance of amnesty and enlistment.
After the BTC ETF was approved, no protocol code changed and no compliance backdoors were added. Wall Street had to learn how to run full nodes and manage cold storage. They adapted to the rules; the rules didn’t bend for them. Or as some put it: Trump needs crypto, not the other way around.
Acceptance of amnesty is something else entirely. It means voluntarily gutting your core values in exchange for legitimacy. Chinese readers know Song Jiang from “Water Margin” the outlaw leader who dreamed of imperial amnesty before he even joined the rebels. Once in charge, he suppressed those who genuinely wanted revolution, and eventually led his brothers to slaughter other rebels, trading their blood for a title from the court. Western bros might think of Saruman. He was the head of the council against Sauron, the White Wizard, yet after gazing into the Palantír, he decided resistance was futile and chose collaboration. He even tried to convince Gandalf to “be practical” and join him. Gandalf refused. What Song Jiang and Saruman share is this: both were core figures on the side of resistance who chose to defect, justifying it as pragmatism. The difference is that Gandalf wasn’t persuaded. On Mount Liang, no one could stop Song Jiang.
So what’s the precondition for acceptance of amnesty? Someone with the authority to surrender on behalf of the whole.
Abstract the question: in a network, who has the authority to represent it? If the answer is “no one,” that system has structural resistance to capitulation. Bitcoin cannot capitulate because there is no Song Jiang, no Saruman. Anyone who wants to surrender can only surrender themselves.
Rather than asking “should we go mainstream,” I think the better question to ask ourself is: if someone wanted to capitulate on our behalf, could they? If the answer is yes, then no matter how pure today’s ideals are, the structural risk of capitulation remains.
Of course, some might think being co-opted wouldn’t be so bad. Then ask ourselves: if someone cut a deal on behalf of this network, and that deal was the opposite of what we wanted, could we live with it? Or would we have to fork, or leave?
我对DWA理解不够深刻，我的理想中现在网络中的一首歌曲、一副精美的图片、一篇好的电子版论文或小说，他们都是现在阶段绝佳的DWA，但现实却没有这样，他们还受控现实物理世界，因为那里有一套完善的机制，有各方利益绑架。我感觉NFT（DOB）并没有完成他们的使命，在现在看来目前真正的DWA只有BTC这一个，其他的加密资产都应该是工具类。
从未来发展看，我对DWA是充满期待，尤其是ai近年的快速发展会加快DWA，人类受限于人为的流程限制，但ai智能体天生就在数字世界，他们需要高效低摩擦的DWA。
从发展方向上看，我会感觉DWA最终会和RWA走同样的道路，即需要监管给出监管框架，在框架内运行。BTC是个独特的个例，因为它是功能单一的货币功能属性，这是它的独特性，但大多DWA他们是“内容”，他们是有很多扩展方向，如一篇数字小说，我们可以它制作出音频故事或视频电影；一个音乐，我可以改变它少量音符，把它变成一个不同风格的新作品；两篇相近的论文，我们需要查重，看谁是抄袭者…，这一切都是需要现实世界用规则来区分和来约束它的，最后用法律来制约和惩罚它背后作假的那个真实的人。这时可能会想到用共识或DAO来约束，但残酷的现实也看到了，现在币圈骗局盛行、多数meme无成本的牟利等失控现状，就是最好的例子，真实原因就是因它真身没有受惩罚，只有它的作品可能受到排斥，但并没有影响他牟利，就会不断有人去做，这就会是混乱和失控。目前世界还是由人来主导的，只有他真实的人受到了约束，才能在该领域形成良性发展。
我不是完全的理想主义者，我是个基于现实的理想主义者，我们要面对现实问题，所以我更倾向DWA会趋同RWA，最终会是有序分类受监管，在监管平台框架内运行。
非常好，这让社区清晰看到CKB路线及近期目标，但我还是觉的还是需要了一些"术"，我们需要在竞争中胜出，需要让建设者在一片红海市场中注意到自己，关于"招安"问题，我可能更相信这是“宋江”为了让项目（团队）的发展的做出的"术"，只是我们事后人看到了它不是一个好的结果罢了。
I strongly agree with Jan’s quote that What CKB ultimately shows will be the combined efforts of all actors. I will share my view as one of the many actors.
I think option 2 is the origin of the whole crypto industry. But I don’t think everyone should be forced to be a cypherpunk. Crypto provides a lot of tools and thoughts. One of the basic ideas is like the private property rights that created a great impact on human society hundreds of years ago. Everyone can and should use these tools and thoughts to protect themselves in their lives in virtual cyberspace, just like in real life. That doesn’t mean everyone should be a cypherpunk. Between the lines, I view that idea more like a new lifestyle.
Everyone has their own lifestyle preferences. You don’t ask why people wear strange clothes, why people eat vegan, not meat, or why people love electric cars instead of fuel vehicles. Even if some of the lifestyles are pretty niche, they are still protected by our society, and people enjoy the same rights as the majorities.
The crypto lifestyle is also a very minority thing. It emphasizes strong privacy and individual sovereignty. It might be smaller than the lifestyle of digital nomads (they are not the same). Not everyone follows this way of life, but there is a group of people who appreciate it. I am hoping CKB or Web5 becomes the land that serves these people well and even attracts more people who are not aware of this lifestyle to try it.
What exact lifestyle is the crypto way, you might ask? In my view, it represents: holding your own digital property (with your private key, not in a CEX), managing your own data (e.g., you love writing articles on a self-hosted blog, you might also use a migratable social network like Atprotocol and Nostr instead of Twitter), paying with digital money that requires no central authority, and using open-source software on your computer so you can tweak it or modify it if you want.
There is nothing wrong if you don’t live this lifestyle. There is also nothing wrong if you want to. I don’t see many houses built around this lifestyle in cyberspace. Especially when it comes to activities that require common spaces or public goods, it is much harder than just setting up a blog on your own, which our pioneers of the free-software/open-source movement have kindly explored. Property, payment, and social networks are these activities that require common spaces and public goods. I want CKB to be the land to build such common spaces and public goods so that more of these houses can be built on top of it.
Interesting Vitalik tweets this today while the CKB community is experimenting Web5 and social networks with innovative projects like this, this, and this! Better to lead than to follow.
Jan，我担忧的是另外一点∶我们仿佛永远在做正确的事情，却永远没有做对，所以从你的判断来看，什么时候，人们对于ckb的价值会预期很高？，也就是价值修正，ckb总不可能永远都这么便宜吧！
为什么不可能？我一直都在说成功的可能性只有1%。我相信CKB可以长期存活（因为有treasury），但存活不等于成功（长期存活意味着有人做事情，但价格也可以比现在更低）。
就算真的选对了方向，或是方向又对又勤奋努力，这个世界也没有一个法则说这样就必然成功，反例倒是很多。
所以还是做错误的事情比较好？或者干脆别做了？或者其实心里觉得是对的也别说？这样的心态连1%的机会都没有。
我并不是要证明CKB在做正确的事（vitalik说了又怎么样？vitalik说不定错了），而是想说 better to lead than to follow. 能预判方向才能有更多时间积累打磨优势，才有机会窗口。如果只会follow, 别人永远比你多准备六个月。很凑巧，似乎有机会窗口来了，社区应该关注CKB生态的这些项目，想办法支持它们。
很容易预见另外一个情况是，decentralized social 在某个时刻真的一阵旋风般的来，但是 3-6个月之后又一阵旋风般的走了（Ethereum 可以把 DeSocial 弄成 SocialFi 一次, 也可以弄第二次）。当风口不再的时候，CKB 社区会怎么做？是又一次重复“看吧我说了没戏”的批判，还是赶紧去追逐下一个风口，还是认定 decentralized social 继续坚持支持曾经的项目和开发者继续尝试？这将是社区自我意识的体现。
我是觉得看似，好像很多角度，但是人们持有ckb的目的是什么，收益又是什么，如果目标甚至都不是提高ckb的价格 人们持有ckb获得了什么？
目的是争 1% 的可能。我相信的是如果CKB生态繁荣，那么CKB经济模型自然会让CKB holder受益。
Vitaik好像惦记中心化的社交网络已经好多年了，但我不是特别看好这个板块，感觉现在再想做出一个类web2的去中心化社交平台挺难的，或说只能是小众化的。首先是对用户来说很难达到数量级的迁移动力，大多数人对自己的数据并不关心，web2也有太多资源和补贴去留现有户用，社交网络平台的壁垒依然很高；其次去中心化社交网在减本增效本质上体现并不明显。其实感觉web3在现阶段，可以在现各个社交平台不待见的ai(agent)创作方面去尝试下。