Dialogue with Hu Yilin: Why did you leave Tsinghua and move to Singapore, and what are you preparing to do in Web3?

Editor: Wu Says Blockchain

In this episode of the podcast, Hu Yilin shares his decision-making process for leaving Tsinghua University and moving to Singapore, which is influenced by both the limitations of the academic system and his interest in free academia and the blockchain ecosystem. Hu Yilin is a PhD from Peking University’s Department of Philosophy and an associate professor in the Department of History of Science at Tsinghua University. He is one of the few university teachers in the Chinese-speaking world actively participating in blockchain activities.

Hu Yilin delves into the impact of the "non-promotion means departure" academic mechanism on young scholars and analyzes the dilemmas of higher education reform. At the same time, he expresses deep insights into fields such as Bitcoin, NFTs, and decentralized science, explaining his reasons for choosing Singapore as a long-term development location, particularly its friendliness towards the cryptocurrency ecosystem and family environment. Finally, he envisions the future of the integration of technology and art, proposing challenges on how to redefine learning and education in the AI era.

The audio-to-text conversion used GPT, so there may be errors. Listen to the full podcast:

Small Universe

YouTube

Reasons for Leaving Tsinghua

Colin: Hello, listeners. As you all know, our podcast's old friend, Professor Hu, is an associate professor in the Department of History of Science at Tsinghua University, but now he has left and moved to Singapore. Professor Hu, why don’t you tell us about this process?

Hu Yilin: It can be considered an ALL IN Web3. First, let me clarify that it’s not really a resignation; it’s more of a natural departure. Young scholars nowadays are quite competitive and have to go through a non-promotion means departure mechanism. This means you must pass the tenure review within six years; if you don’t, you have to leave. I decided not to participate in the review.

The "non-promotion means departure" mechanism was pioneered by Tsinghua. Tsinghua and Peking University were the first to implement this system. It is modeled after the American academic system, but to be honest, the academic world in the U.S. isn’t that great either. Moreover, when China borrowed this model, it became somewhat distorted. However, to be fair, Tsinghua is still much better than many other universities in China. My experience at Tsinghua was that, at least, it respects its teachers relatively well.

Although I left Tsinghua, I don’t have much dissatisfaction. Mainly, Tsinghua does respect its teachers. This respect comes in two aspects. One is treating teachers as "insiders." Many universities that implement the non-promotion means departure mechanism treat teachers as temporary workers, exploiting their research output during the golden years before they turn 35. Tsinghua is relatively better; it focuses more on the quality of papers rather than quantity. Tsinghua adopts a representative work mechanism, where papers only need to reach an internationally or domestically leading level without requiring a particularly high quantity. So, I think this aspect is acceptable. But even so, I ultimately chose to leave. This year just happened to be the end of my contract, so I left naturally.

Actually, I followed Professor Wu Guosheng from Peking University to Tsinghua. I am one of the veterans in the Department of History of Science at Tsinghua. A group of us veterans from the department has now left. Strangely, not a single young teacher in the Department of History of Science has passed the tenure review. Each person's situation is different, with various reasons, but in the end, no one stayed.

Some went abroad, some went to other universities. Some didn’t pass the review and didn’t get tenure, and others chose to change careers, such as going into religious life. In short, there are various situations, and everyone is taking their own path.

Dilemmas of Academic System Reform

Colin: It seems that universities today are really different from before. It used to feel like entering a university was like entering a system where you could just coast along, but now it seems the pressure has increased.

Hu Yilin: Yes, this is the core of the academic issue. We can also talk about decentralized science (DeSci), which is about the decentralization of academia and research. I have strong feelings about this. Whether in traditional academic models or the current academic model, whether in China or the West, there are significant problems, and it can even be said that they are not well-suited to current developments.

In the past, Tsinghua and Peking University took the lead in reform, which was, in a sense, necessary. Under the traditional model, academia often turned into a "land-grabbing game." For example, a professor occupies a position, and no one cares about the quality of their research, especially in the humanities. Someone occupies a position, and regardless of whether their research is outstanding, that position is theirs. This model is indeed detrimental to academic mobility and makes it difficult to create a good academic atmosphere. Thus, later reforms introduced the "non-promotion means departure" mechanism, turning iron rice bowls into temporary jobs.

The so-called non-promotion means departure is generally a six-year mechanism. The first six years after you graduate with a PhD are the golden years of your academic career, but under the non-promotion means departure mechanism, during this time, you are a temporary worker. To pass the review, you need to work hard to publish papers and pursue research projects, pushing yourself to the limit. All the results belong to the school, but you may still not get tenure and have to leave.

What happens next? You might go to second- or third-tier universities or even struggle to find a job. By then, you have already passed the golden period for academic output, and your research output declines, with fewer job opportunities. This model is not friendly to scholars.

However, in a relatively balanced environment, this model might still work, such as at Tsinghua. The non-promotion means departure mechanism at Tsinghua puts some pressure on you but is not so harsh. Research is relatively free, and teaching is also valued, with lower levels of competition. However, such environments are rare. Tsinghua's fatal problem is insufficient funding and low salaries. It’s like in the job market; places with high salaries, like big companies, can be extremely competitive, while Tsinghua, where the money is less, may have slightly less pressure, but contradictions still exist.

From a broader trend perspective, this kind of "competition" is unsolvable. I once saw an article comparing university faculty positions to a "Ponzi scheme." Especially in the humanities, the best path for PhDs is to teach at universities, but faculty positions are limited. A professor might train 20 students, and those students might train even more, creating an infinite demand for expansion. However, the actual number of faculty positions does not increase that much.

In the past, the expansion of universities in China and the West alleviated this problem to some extent. For example, population growth and the popularization of education led to a greater demand for universities. But when the expansion ends, such as now with population decline and educational demand nearing saturation, the problem becomes apparent. In the future, universities will enter a period of contraction, and this mechanism will become increasingly unsustainable.

Colin: I didn’t expect the academic world to be a Ponzi scheme, much like the crypto world.

Hu Yilin: Yes. Many disciplines have similar issues. The field of history of science, where I am, is somewhat more adaptable because we undertake general education tasks. But some less popular specialized disciplines face serious problems. A professor often trains students only to take over their position; if each generation only recruits one student, courses cannot even be offered. However, offering courses requires more students, but what will these students do in the future? This is the reason for the unsustainability of the model; reform is necessary.

Both China and the West have this problem, but it is more severe in China. China has completed in a decade or two what took the West over a century to achieve in terms of expansion. This rapid expansion makes it harder for the Chinese academic community to adapt to a rapidly contracting environment. The West also has similar issues, but the pace is slower, allowing for more time to adjust.

Reasons for Choosing Singapore After Departure

Colin: Professor Hu, when did you start considering leaving academia? And why did you choose Singapore? Is it related to Web3 or blockchain?

Hu Yilin: The idea of leaving academia was something I considered from the beginning. Because I never regarded academia as a "iron rice bowl," I always thought about what to do if I didn’t pass tenure. Of course, if I didn’t pass Tsinghua’s tenure, I could still go to some top universities in China; I can’t call them second-tier, after all, Tsinghua is top-tier, so finding a teaching position at a regular top university shouldn’t be a big problem. But the question is whether to continue in academia or simply quit and turn to being a free scholar; this is something I have been contemplating.

The reason I teach is not to find a "job." As a Bitcoin player, our mindset is not to believe in so-called "iron rice bowls." These things seem stable but are actually unreliable. Even a tenured position is not a true iron rice bowl. If the whole system collapses and the Ponzi scheme can’t be sustained, the so-called iron rice bowl becomes meaningless. Moreover, even if there is an iron rice bowl, the food may become less and less.

Take Tsinghua as an example; its salary is very low and is well-known for that. Tsinghua attracted people with high salaries in the early stages of institutional reform, but it does not offer tenure. The high income and good treatment provided at that time were very competitive. However, now other universities across the country have started to implement quasi-tenure systems, but their treatment has improved, while Tsinghua’s has not changed significantly. As a result, although Tsinghua's "rice bowl" still exists, the food is no longer sufficient. In this situation, the so-called "iron rice bowl" has instead become an "iron shackle," hindering you from jumping into a more free environment for development.

Despite this, my time at Tsinghua was still good. Because I don’t rely on my salary to support myself, I enjoy the sense of achievement that teaching brings. This sense of achievement cannot be bought with money. The feeling of being able to influence those excellent students with the courses and theories you prepare with care is irreplaceable. However, over time, this sense of achievement has also changed. For example, when training PhD students, you feel responsible for their future, but you know they will ultimately enter the Ponzi scheme of academia. This contradiction greatly diminishes my sense of achievement in teaching.

On the other hand, in recent years, I have communicated with many people in the crypto world and have also felt a sense of achievement. I find that my thoughts and views can influence more people and receive positive feedback. This makes me realize that the dissemination of ideas is not necessarily limited to academia. Stepping out of academia may face a broader and more effective space for information dissemination. This is also one of the reasons I ultimately chose to leave.

Colin: So why did you choose Singapore? Was this decision made after careful consideration?

Hu Yilin: Actually, I didn’t think about it for long. I decided on Singapore the first time I came here; initially, I was considering going to Hong Kong.

Hong Kong was the first option because it was more convenient. As a somewhat introverted person, I am not very willing to face a completely unfamiliar environment, such as dealing with foreigners; I am not very good at language and socializing. I hoped to be in a place with many Chinese people while also having a certain openness. Hong Kong seemed suitable, but later I discovered several issues. First, many people say "going to Hong Kong is not really moving," meaning that going to Hong Kong doesn’t count as true relocation. Second, the living environment in Hong Kong feels oppressive, especially for children. If a child lives in a small space for a long time, their mental health may be affected. In contrast, Singapore offers a much more spacious and comfortable living environment.

Additionally, people in Singapore are very friendly. Although my short experience in Hong Kong was not bad, I generally felt that Hong Kong people seemed a bit "lifeless"; for example, some waitstaff made it feel like I owed them money. In contrast, people in Singapore are warmer and friendlier. Moreover, the immigration procedures in Singapore are relatively simple; for instance, applying for an Employment Pass (EP) is not too difficult. Although obtaining permanent residency is challenging, living here is not difficult.

In summary, my reasons for choosing Singapore are threefold:

First, friendly to Chinese people;

Second, relatively friendly to the cryptocurrency ecosystem;

Third, friendly to the wealthy. The social order is stable, which may not be good for social vitality, but it is very friendly to those who do not need to struggle and are already in the affluent class.

Integration of Technology History and Blockchain Research

Colin: Professor Hu, how is your life settling down now? What are your future plans? Will you continue to engage in academic-related work, or will you lean more towards Web3 and blockchain-related work?

Hu Yilin: It’s a bit of both. First, my biggest task is to settle my child; that’s the priority. Secondly, under this premise, I pursue freedom. I have now integrated academia and Web3. This integration has been consistent from the beginning. I mentioned before that the Bitcoin space is actually a direct product of my doctoral thesis. While writing my doctoral thesis, I pondered the nature of money and why Bitcoin is correct and valuable. After figuring it out, I entered this field. You could say that from the beginning to now, this has been a process of unity of knowledge and action.

My academic direction is the history of technology, particularly leaning towards the history and philosophy of technology. The history of technology is fascinating because it reveals the true forces driving change in human history. Compared to political history and dynastic changes, the transformations brought about by the history of technology are deeper and more intense. Political history often involves cycles of change without real transformation, while the history of technology represents continuous progress. For example, the Renaissance, the scientific revolution, and the industrial revolution all benefited from the impetus of science and technology. From perspective drawing, printing technology, to navigation technology, and then to modern science and industrial systems, these technological innovations have profoundly propelled human history.

The history of technology allows us to witness this magnificent transformation and even enables us to participate in it. This is what makes it captivating. Science fiction, on the other hand, views future technological changes from another angle, depicting new ways of life and social appearances. The history of technology explores the past, while science fiction imagines the future, but now, monumental changes are truly happening in the time and space we occupy, and we feel we are constantly encountering historic moments, witnessing science fiction becoming reality; this feeling is very shocking.

This combination gives me a sense of mission, as if participating in a new chapter of the epic of human destiny. This experience is exhilarating and reflects a unity of knowledge and action. The significance of studying history is not merely to record the past but to inspire actions and judgments in the present. History does not directly tell you what to do, but it can inspire you through the rendering of emotions and experiences.

For example, when watching a novel or a series, if you have seen the earlier parts, you will feel more engaged when watching a new episode. Because you place the current plot within a grand narrative, understanding it more deeply. For me, viewing current events against a larger historical backdrop increases my sense of involvement.

Therefore, what we do is not just for making money or supporting our families, nor is it just for our own small piece of land, but to participate in a greater wave of humanity. Although the significance of this wave is difficult to define precisely, the experience it brings is very intense.

Bitcoin Investment, Holding Strategy, and Cold Wallets

Colin: Professor Hu, let’s talk about some practical matters in the crypto world. People are quite concerned about your holding ratio; is the majority still in Bitcoin? Did you continuously increase your holdings from early on, or do you mainly rely on the Bitcoin you bought early on?

Hu Yilin: Well, this question isn’t particularly complicated. I started keeping records when I entered the space; I remember saying, "I entered the crypto world with a few thousand funds," and this content can be found in my blog. Although I entered the space early, in 2013, I don’t have much money now. Many people find it strange that I entered in 2013, have always been a HODLER, and have advocated holding coins, but why haven’t I made a lot of money? The reason is simple: I was a poor student at that time with no income, so I had very little capital to invest.

I initially scraped together money from my living expenses to buy Bitcoin, and later my dad criticized me, saying that living expenses are for living, not for investing. Later, I received a scholarship and used that to buy some. So, my initial capital was only a few thousand. This was my original capital, and I have been increasing my holdings since then. This year, I am still increasing my holdings because after moving abroad, I sold a house in China and used that money to continue buying Bitcoin.

Colin: With the price so high now, are you still increasing your holdings?

Hu Yilin: Yes, I plan to continue increasing my holdings. In the long run, I believe Bitcoin will always outperform fiat currency.

Colin: I heard Shen Yu mention a "four wallet theory" before, which is about keeping 60% of mainstream assets, like Bitcoin, in a cold wallet; 20% for flexible operations; 10% for high-risk investments; and 5% to 10% in fiat currency. Is your strategy similar to this theory?

Hu Yilin: I don’t quite agree with his theory, especially regarding the fiat currency part. He mentioned using fiat currency interest to cover living costs, which is nearly impossible for ordinary people to achieve. Only big shots like Shen Yu can calculate such scales. Ordinary people simply cannot do it.

My strategy is based on a Bitcoin standard. I use 4% of all my assets for living costs, and these assets do not need to be converted into fiat currency to earn interest. I cover my living costs directly with Bitcoin’s annual growth rate because Bitcoin’s growth rate far exceeds the risk-free rate of traditional fiat currencies.

Colin: Do you stake Bitcoin for interest, or do you keep it in a cold wallet?

Hu Yilin: For staking for interest, I would only take out a small amount to play with, like half a coin or one coin. For me, this is just an experiment, and I wouldn’t invest a large portion of my assets. I have tried quite a few things, like Merlin and Blue Box, and ultimately lost quite a bit. Of course, these attempts were more for experiencing cutting-edge gameplay.

Colin: Sometimes you can’t help but buy a little when you see a project doing well, right?

Hu Yilin: That’s true, especially during the NFT boom; I couldn’t resist and bought some, resulting in significant losses. Although the NFT market has heated up again recently, my assets have only returned from "ankle-deep" to "knee-deep."

Colin: Do you have any recommendations for cold wallets? What wallet do you use?

Hu Yilin: I keep my main assets in the BitPie wallet. BitPie has been around for a long time; the team disbanded early on, but this wallet doesn’t require upgrades and is still very usable. I think it is one of the best options among cold wallets. Its model is to use an old phone as a cold wallet. Almost everyone has an idle old phone, right?

You just need to install the BitPie wallet on the old phone, then disconnect it from the internet and disable Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, turning that phone into a cold wallet. Then, install a hot wallet on another new phone and operate through QR code signatures. This method is both simple and secure, and it’s very low-cost, without needing to buy additional hardware wallets.

Colin: BitPie and Bitpie are the same company, right?

Hu Yilin: Yes, but later Bitpie launched a hardware wallet, and the BitPie wallet model was abandoned because it wasn’t profitable. I can understand that; after all, it’s open-source software and has no profit point. But I really like this model.

Additionally, I recommend that everyone memorize their mnemonic phrases. I have memorized several sets of mnemonic phrases, so even if there is a problem with the cold wallet, the assets can be safely recovered.

Comparison of Bitcoin Ecosystem and ETH Ecosystem

Colin: Professor Hu, you previously worked on some NFT projects in the Bitcoin ecosystem, but recently it seems the industry’s focus has shifted from the Bitcoin ecosystem to meme coins. Do you think there is still an opportunity for the Bitcoin ecosystem in the future? Or will you also pay attention to other ecosystems, such as the hotspots on Solana or Base?

Hu Yilin: I do not reject meme coins; these projects can be fun. Speaking of the Bitcoin ecosystem, I have always been optimistic about it. However, the current problem with the Bitcoin ecosystem is that it has not yet found a particularly good development model and has not established a strong sense of identity.

From the perspective of the entire industry, the Bitcoin ecosystem has its uniqueness, and one reason I was optimistic about it initially was that it could serve as an alternative to the ETH ecosystem. The problem with the ETH ecosystem is its unclear positioning: it wants to maintain decentralization and uphold punk spirit, but in many aspects, it has moved towards centralization. Moreover, it cannot compete with Bitcoin in terms of decentralization, nor can it compete with Solana in terms of efficiency and pace.

Solana has a clear positioning; it is centralized, efficient, and fast-paced. This positioning attracts those who value user experience. If you want a more efficient chain, choose Solana. In contrast, ETH is somewhat caught in between, failing to please either side.

As for Base, as a corporate chain, it also tends to develop in a centralized direction, aiming to improve efficiency. Although it cannot be said to be completely centralized, it is more centralized than ETH and has taken a clear efficiency-first approach.

The reason I am optimistic about the Bitcoin ecosystem is that it represents the ideal of decentralization. As a believer in decentralization, I believe this direction is still correct. However, the current dilemma of the Bitcoin ecosystem is that it is not pleasing to either side. On one hand, Bitcoin HODLERs do not recognize many new projects in the ecosystem, believing they are essentially still "speculating on coins," which are variations of altcoins. On the other hand, for users who enjoy speculating on coins, the Bitcoin ecosystem is slow, inefficient, and has low traffic, making it far less attractive than the Solana ecosystem.

As Bitcoin HODLERs, we are inherently conservative. It is already difficult to allocate 1% or 2% of our assets to participate in these projects, but asking us to go ALL IN or heavily bet is impossible. Because of this conservatism, it is challenging for the Bitcoin ecosystem to attract traditional Bitcoin players, and it also cannot compete for speculative users who prefer short-term gains.

Nevertheless, I believe the Bitcoin ecosystem still has opportunities. For example, in the future, it could stop pursuing the rhythm of "speculating on coins" and instead focus on projects with long-term value. NFTs on Bitcoin might be one direction. Because Bitcoin has stronger "eternity" and "solidarity," it may be more persuasive in the NFT field.

The breakthrough of the Bitcoin ecosystem in the future may rely on the next generation of NFT products. These products need to break away from the logic of pure speculation and possess more practical gameplay or value. If these new models can align with the Bitcoin ecosystem, I believe it still has the opportunity to rise again.

Possibilities and Problems of Decentralized Science

Colin: Professor Hu, what are your upcoming exploration plans? Will you continue to focus on the arts, or will you try something new in decentralized science (DeSci) as we discussed earlier?

Hu Yilin: Regarding decentralized science, I must admit that I am self-aware. I really want to do this, but currently, I do not have enough motivation or energy to truly push this forward. This field has a long way to go and is very challenging. So, if someone is willing to do it, I will fully support them, such as serving as an advisor, consultant, or even endorsing the project. I generally do not easily endorse projects, but if a project is genuinely moving towards decentralized research and aligns with my philosophy and standards, I am willing to support it.

Colin: Indeed, some projects start with the goal of issuing tokens, which seem more like money-grabbing schemes.

Hu Yilin: Yes, indeed, some projects are too eager for quick success. For example, if they rush to issue tokens from the start, they deplete the project’s potential. In reality, the core issue of decentralized research is not funding but influence and consensus. How to establish consensus in the academic community is key.

Simply relying on funding cannot drive research development. If throwing money could solve problems, China would have a large number of Nobel Prize winners by now. China does not lack funding; the issue is that research requires time, atmosphere, and cultural accumulation. This accumulation cannot be achieved by merely throwing money at it. For example, Peking University, although it does not have much funding, has a very deep foundation in both the sciences and humanities. This foundation cannot be instantly replicated by throwing money; Tsinghua or other universities cannot reach this height in a short time.

The principles of decentralized science and decentralized finance are the same. Many projects start by issuing tokens, which, to put it bluntly, is for financing and money-grabbing, but decentralized science does not lack funding. The real contradiction in research development is that it requires time to build consensus and a cultural atmosphere, rather than relying on token issuance to attract short-term interests from the outset.

However, I am not completely opposed to issuing tokens. Sooner or later, issuing tokens is possible, but it should not be the starting point of a project; it should be a tool for later development. Decentralized science needs more long-term planning and solid advancement, rather than depleting expectations from the beginning. Only then is it possible to truly promote the development of this field.

Future Plans: Integration of Technology and Art

Colin: Professor Hu, you might consider finding a few like-minded people to start a dedicated podcast. For example, focusing on the decentralized science field you are interested in, doing an episode each week would be great.

Hu Yilin: Thank you for the suggestion! In fact, I do have similar plans. I previously rented a studio in Hong Kong, originally intending to explore digital art. In the future, I may also develop some programmatic content, not necessarily a podcast; it could be a video program or other types of creation. We have some advanced MR systems, XR systems, and some scene designs related to digital art. So, we may release programs on platforms like WeChat, YouTube, or Bilibili. This program may include both art and technology, and even cover themes like academia and decentralized science.

We have some in-depth thoughts on the integration of technology and art. The split between technology and art is actually part of modernity, gradually emerging after the Industrial Revolution. In earlier history, technology and art were unified, and there wasn’t even a distinction in vocabulary. For example, the word "art" could refer to technology, art, or knowledge. This split is a product of the 18th, 19th, and even 20th centuries. We believe that this split may enter a new phase of integration in the future. As the saying goes, "what has been divided must unite," technology and art may once again move towards unity.

This new integration is not just about the combination of art and technology; it also involves philosophy, science, and even the overall direction of academia. For instance, we discussed earlier the function of universities: what exactly are universities cultivating? Is the current educational model merely producing "successors" to occupy academic resources? This is actually a significant issue.

Not only do the humanities face a Ponzi scheme, but the sciences also encounter similar problems. Many professionals trained in various fields now seem replaceable by AI. For a long time, universities have regarded human resources as the primary training goal, but in the AI era, these human resources have gradually lost their advantages. The speed of AI’s updates far exceeds the learning speed of humans; a human generation may take decades, but AI evolves almost daily.

Therefore, we need to rethink the meaning of learning. Broadly speaking, why do humans need to learn? What should we learn? More narrowly, what is the future of universities? Although many universities may disappear during the transformation, some important legacies of human civilization still need to be preserved. So, how do we redefine learning and education? This will be a significant topic.