Conversation with Hu Yilin: Why did you leave Tsinghua University and move to Singapore? What is All in Web3 planning to do?

Editor: Wu said about blockchain

In this podcast, Hu Yilin shared his decision-making process of leaving Tsinghua University and moving to Singapore. Behind this were both the limitations of the academic system and his interest in free academics and the blockchain ecosystem. Hu Yilin is a PhD student in the Department of Philosophy of Peking University 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 who actively participates in activities in the blockchain world.

Hu Yilin deeply discussed the impact of the promotion-or-leave academic mechanism on young scholars, and analyzed the dilemma of institutional reform in universities. At the same time, he expressed his in-depth insights into Bitcoin, NFT, decentralized science and other fields, and explained the reasons for choosing Singapore for long-term development, especially its friendliness to the cryptocurrency ecology and family environment. Finally, he looked forward to the future of the integration of technology and art, and raised the challenge of how to redefine learning and education in the AI ​​era.

GPT is used to convert audio to text, so there may be errors. Listen to the full podcast:

small universe

Youtube

Reasons for leaving Tsinghua

Colin: Hello everyone, everyone knows that our old podcast friend Mr. Hu is an associate professor in the Department of History of Science at Tsinghua University, but now Mr. Hu has resigned and moved to Singapore. Teacher Hu, why don't you tell me about this process yourself?

Hu Yilin: It’s ALL IN Web3. First of all, let me correct you. It is not considered a resignation, it is considered a natural resignation. Today's young scholars are actually quite busy, and they all have to go through the promotion-or-leave mechanism. The promotion-or-leave policy means that you must pass the long-term employment review within 6 years. If you fail, you will have to leave. I decided not to participate in the judging.

The “promote or leave” mechanism was pioneered by Tsinghua University. Tsinghua University and Peking University took the lead in implementing this system. It is based on the American academic system, but to be honest, the American academic system is not very good either. In addition, when China learned from it, it also changed a bit. However, to be honest, Tsinghua is much better than many domestic universities. My feeling in Tsinghua is that at least Tsinghua respects teachers relatively.

Although I left Tsinghua University, I actually didn’t have any major dissatisfaction. The main reason is that Tsinghua still respects teachers. There are two aspects to respect here. One is to regard teachers as "one of our own". When many universities implement a promotion-or-leave system, they treat teachers as temporary workers, taking advantage of the golden period of young scholars before the age of 35 to squeeze their research output. Tsinghua is relatively better. It pays more attention to the quality of papers rather than the quantity. Tsinghua adopts a representative work mechanism. The papers only need to reach the international or domestic leading level, and the number is not required to be particularly large. So I think this is still okay. But even so, I finally chose to leave. This year happened to be the time when my contract expired, so I left naturally.

In fact, I followed Professor Wu Guosheng from Peking University to Tsinghua University. I am one of the veterans of the Department of History of Science at Tsinghua University. A group of veterans of our Department of History of Science at that time are now gone. It is strange that not a single young teacher in the Department of History of Science has been appointed for a permanent position. Everyone's situation is different, and everyone has their own reasons, but in the end, none of them stayed.

Some went abroad, some went to other schools. There are also people who have failed the review and have not become regular practitioners, and some have chosen to change careers, such as practicing Taoism. In short, there are various situations, and everyone goes his own way.

The Dilemma of Academic System Reform

Colin: It seems that colleges and universities are really different now than before. In the past, I felt that entering a university was like entering a system and just getting by slowly. Now it seems that the pressure has increased.

Hu Yilin: Yes, this is the core of academic issues. By the way, we can talk about decentralized science (DeSci), which is about the decentralization of academic and scientific research. I feel very strongly about this. Whether it is the traditional academic model or the current academic model, whether it is China or the West, there are big problems, and it can even be said that it is no longer suitable for current development.

In the past, Tsinghua University and Peking University took the lead in reform, which was actually necessary in a certain sense. Under the traditional model, academia has often become a "trap game." For example, a professor occupies one position, and no one cares about the quality of his research, especially in the field of liberal arts. Someone occupies a niche, and regardless of whether the research is excellent or not, the position is his. This model is indeed not conducive to academic mobility, and it is difficult to create a good academic atmosphere. As a result, the reform later introduced a “promote or leave” mechanism, turning iron rice bowls into temporary workers.

The so-called promotion or departure is generally a six-year mechanism. The first six years after you graduate with a Ph.D. are the golden period of your academic career, but under the promotion-or-leave system, you will be a temporary worker during this period. In order to pass the review, you need to work hard to publish papers, work on scientific research topics, and write to the extreme. All the achievements belong to the school, but you may still not be considered for permanent employment and may have to leave.

What happens next? You may go to a second- or third-rate college and you may not even find a job. At this time, you have passed the golden period of academic output, research output has declined, and there are fewer job opportunities. This model is not friendly to academics.

However, in a relatively balanced environment, this model may be okay, such as Tsinghua University. Tsinghua's promotion-or-leave mechanism puts some pressure on students, but it's not that harsh. Research is relatively free, and teaching is also valued, to a lesser extent. However, this environment is rare. Tsinghua's fatal problems are insufficient funding and low salaries. It's just like in the workplace, places with high wages, such as big factories, will be in trouble, while places with less money, like Tsinghua University, may have less pressure, but there is also a contradiction.

From the perspective of the larger trend, this "volume" is unsolvable. I once saw an article comparing university teaching to a “Ponzi scheme.” Especially in the humanities, the best way out for a PhD student is to teach in a university, but teaching positions are limited. A professor may train 20 students, and these students will train more students, creating an unlimited expansion demand. However, actual teaching positions will not increase by that much.

In the past, university expansion in China and the West has alleviated this problem to some extent. For example, population increase and popularization of education have brought more demand for colleges and universities. But when the expansion ends, such as now when the population shrinks and the demand for education becomes saturated, problems are exposed. In the future, universities will enter a period of shrinkage, and this mechanism will become increasingly unsustainable.

Colin: I didn’t expect that academia is also a Ponzi scheme, very similar to the currency circle.

Hu Yilin: Yes. Many disciplines have similar problems. Disciplines like the history of science where I am are slightly more adaptable because we take on general education tasks. But some of the less popular specialized subjects have serious problems. A professor often trains students just to succeed his class. If only one student is recruited from each generation, the course will not be able to be opened. When classes start, more students are needed, but what will these students do in the future? This is why the model is unsustainable and must be reformed.

Both China and the West have this problem, but China's problem is more serious. It took China more than ten to twenty years to complete the expansion pace of more than a hundred years in the West. This rapid expansion makes it more difficult for Chinese academic circles to adapt to a rapidly shrinking environment. The West also has similar problems, but the pace is slightly slower and there is relatively more time to adjust.

Reasons why you chose Singapore after leaving your job

Colin: Mr. Hu, when did you start thinking about leaving college? And why choose Singapore? Does this have anything to do with Web3 or blockchain?

Hu Yilin: I actually considered the idea of ​​leaving college from the beginning. Because I never regarded college as an "iron rice bowl", I always thought about what I would do if I didn't get a long-term job. Of course, if I don't get the long-term appointment from Tsinghua University, I can still go to some first-rate universities in China. I can't call myself second-rate. After all, Tsinghua is super first-rate, so it shouldn't be a big problem to find a teaching position in an ordinary first-rate university. But the question is, should I continue in college, or should I quit working at all and become a freelance scholar? This is what I have been thinking about.

The reason why I teach is not to find a "job." As Bitcoin players, our concept is not to believe in the so-called "iron rice bowl". This kind of thing seems stable, but in fact it is unreliable. Even tenure is not a real job. If the entire system collapses and the Ponzi scheme cannot be sustained, the so-called iron rice bowl will be meaningless. In addition, even if there is an iron rice bowl, there may be less and less rice.

Take Tsinghua University as an example. Its wages are notoriously low. In the early days of institutional reform, Tsinghua relied on high salaries to attract people, but it did not provide tenured faculty positions. The high incomes and good benefits it provided were still very competitive at the time. However, other colleges and universities across the country have also begun to implement pre-employment mechanisms, but their remuneration has improved, while Tsinghua's remuneration has basically not changed significantly. In this way, although Tsinghua's "rice bowl" is still there, there is no longer enough rice. In this case, the so-called "iron rice bowl" becomes an "iron restraint", preventing you from jumping to a freer environment to develop.

Despite this, my time at Tsinghua was good. Because I do not rely on salary to support myself, but enjoy the sense of accomplishment that teaching brings. This sense of accomplishment cannot be bought with money. The courses and theories you carefully prepared can influence those outstanding students. This feeling is irreplaceable. But as time goes by, this sense of accomplishment changes. For example, when you train PhD students, you feel responsible for their future, but you know they will end up in the Ponzi scheme of academia. This contradiction greatly reduces my sense of accomplishment in teaching.

On the other hand, I have communicated with many people in the currency circle over the years, and I also feel a sense of accomplishment. I found that my thoughts and opinions influenced more people and received positive feedback. This made me realize that spreading ideas is not necessarily limited to colleges and universities. Going out of colleges and universities, you may face a broader and more effective space for information dissemination. This was one of the reasons why I finally chose to leave.

Colin: So why did you choose Singapore? Was this decision well thought out?

Hu Yilin: Actually, I didn’t think about it for a long time. I made up my mind when I first came to Singapore. I actually considered going to Hong Kong at first.

Hong Kong is the first option because it is more convenient. As a relatively homebody, I am not willing to face a completely unfamiliar environment, such as dealing with foreigners, and I am not very good at language and social interaction. I hope to be in a place with a large number of Chinese people and a somewhat open environment. Hong Kong seemed very suitable, but later I discovered several problems. First of all, many people say that "it is better not to prosper than to prosper Hong Kong", which means that going to Hong Kong does not really count as emigration. Secondly, the living environment in Hong Kong makes me feel depressed, especially for children. If a child lives in a small space for a long time, his or her mental health may be affected. In comparison, the living environment in Singapore is much more spacious and comfortable.

In addition, people in Singapore are very friendly. Although my short-term experience in Hong Kong was good, overall I felt that Hong Kong people were a bit "lifeless". For example, some waiters felt like I owed them money. People in Singapore are more warm and friendly. In addition, the immigration procedures in Singapore are relatively simple. For example, applying for an EP (Employment Pass) is not too difficult. Although permanent residence is difficult, it is not difficult as a place to live.

To sum up, there are three reasons why I chose Singapore:

First, the Chinese are friendly;

Second, it is relatively friendly to the cryptocurrency ecosystem;

Third, be friendly to the rich. The social order is stable. Although this may not be a good thing for social vitality, it is very friendly to people who do not need to work hard and are already in the wealthy class.

**The combination of science and technology history and blockchain

research**

Colin: Mr. Hu, how is your current life arrangement? Any plans for the future? Will you continue to engage in academic-related things, or will you prefer Web3 and blockchain-related work?

Hu Yilin: All of them. First of all, my biggest task is to settle the children, this is the first priority. Secondly, pursuing freedom under this premise, I have now integrated academic and Web3. This integration has been consistent from the beginning. I have mentioned before that the Bitcoin community is actually a direct product of my doctoral thesis. When I was writing my doctoral thesis, I thought about the nature of money and why Bitcoin is correct and valuable. After thinking about it, I entered this field. It can be said that from the beginning to the present, this has been a process of unity of knowledge and action.

My academic direction is the history of science and technology, especially the history of technology and the philosophy of technology. The history of technology is interesting because it shows the forces that have truly driven change throughout human history. Compared with political history and dynasty changes, the changes brought about by technological history are more profound and dramatic. Political history is often a cycle of changing the soup without changing the medicine, but the history of technology is a continuous progress. For example, the Renaissance, Scientific Revolution and Industrial Revolution all benefited from the promotion of science and technology. From perspective, printing, to navigation technology, to modern scientific and industrial systems, these technological innovations have greatly promoted human history.

The history of technology allows us to see this magnificent transformation, and even allows us to participate in it ourselves. That's what's so fascinating about it. Science fiction, on the other hand, looks at future technological changes from another direction and depicts a new lifestyle and social outlook. The history of technology explores the past, and science fiction imagines the future, but now the great changes are really happening in the time and space we live in now. We feel that we are constantly encountering historical moments and witnessing science fiction come true. This feeling is very shocking.

This combination gives me a sense of purpose, like participating in a new chapter in the poetry of human destiny. This experience is exciting and a manifestation of the unity of knowledge and action. The significance of studying history is not only the description of the past, but also the inspiration for current actions and judgments. History will not tell you directly what to do, but it will inspire you through the rendering of emotions and experiences.

For example, if you read a novel or a TV series and watched the previous part, you will feel more involved when you watch the new episode. Because you will put the current plot into a grand narrative and understand it more deeply. For me, seeing current events in a larger historical context increases my sense of involvement.

Therefore, what we do is not just to make money to support our families, nor is it for our own one-third of an acre, but to participate in a greater human wave. Although the meaning of this wave is difficult to define exactly, the experience it brings is very strong.

Bitcoin investment, holding strategy and cold wallet

Colin: Mr. Hu, let’s talk about some practical things in the currency circle. What everyone is more concerned about is your holding ratio. Are most of them still in Bitcoin? Have you been adding to your position since the early days, or have you mainly relied on the Bitcoin you bought in the early days?

Hu Yilin: Well, this question is actually not particularly complicated. I started recording it when I entered the cryptocurrency industry. I remember that I said at the time, “enter the cryptocurrency industry with a few thousand funds.” These contents can be found in my blog. Although I entered the industry very early, in 2013, I don’t have much money now. Many people may find it strange that I have been in the industry for 13 years and have always been a HODLER and have always advocated currency holding, but why haven’t I made much money? The reason is simple. I was a poor student with no income and very little money to invest.

I first used my living expenses to buy Bitcoin bit by bit. Later, my dad criticized me, saying that living expenses are for living, not for investment. Later, I got a scholarship and used the scholarship to buy some. So the initial capital was only a few thousand yuan. This was my original capital, and I have been adding to my position since then. I am still adding to my position this year because after I moved abroad, I sold a house in China and used the money to continue buying Bitcoin.

Colin: Now that the price is so high, are you still adding to your position?

Hu Yilin: Yes, I am still prepared to continue to increase my position. In the long run, I believe Bitcoin can always outperform fiat currencies.

Colin: I heard Shenyu mention a "four wallet theory" before, which is about 60% of mainstream assets, such as Bitcoin, placed in cold wallets; 20% for some flexible operations; 10% for high-risk investments; 5% ~10% is reserved as fiat currency. Is your strategy similar to this theory?

Hu Yilin: I don’t quite agree with his theory, especially the part about legal currency. He mentioned that using legal currency interest to cover the cost of living is a ratio that is almost impossible for ordinary people to achieve. Only a master like Shenyu can calculate this kind of scale. Ordinary people simply can't do it.

My strategy is based on Bitcoin. I use 4% of all assets for living costs, and these assets do not need to be converted into legal currency to earn interest. My cost of living is directly covered by the annual growth rate of Bitcoin, because the growth rate of Bitcoin is much higher than the risk-free interest rate of traditional fiat currencies.

Colin: Will you pledge your Bitcoin to raise interest rates? Or put it in a cold wallet?

Hu Yilin: If I pledge to raise interest rates, I will only use a small amount of funds to play with, such as half a coin or one coin. For me, it's just trying and not putting the bulk of my assets into it. I have tried many before, such as Merlin and Blue Box, but in the end I lost a lot. Of course, these attempts are more for experiencing cutting-edge gameplay.

Colin: Sometimes you can’t help but buy something if you see a project is doing well, right?

Hu Yilin: That’s true, especially during the NFT market. I couldn’t help it and bought some, and ended up losing a lot. Although the NFT market has become hot again recently, my assets have only returned from "ankles" to "knees".

Colin: What suggestions do you have for cold wallets? What wallet are you using?

Hu Yilin: My main assets are in Bitai Wallet. Bitai Wallet was very early, and the team was disbanded very early, but this wallet does not need to be upgraded and is still very useful. I think it is one of the best solutions for cold wallets. Its model is to use an old mobile phone as a cold wallet. Almost all of us have an old cell phone that’s sitting around, right?

You only need to install BitTorch Wallet on your old phone, then disconnect from the Internet and delete the Bluetooth and Wi-Fi functions, so that the phone becomes a cold wallet. Then install the hot wallet on another new phone and operate it through the QR code signature. This method is simple, safe, and very low-cost, and does not require the purchase of additional hardware wallets.

Colin: BitPie Wallet 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 was not profitable. I can understand it, after all, this is open source software and there is no profit point. But I really like this model.

In addition, I suggest that everyone memorize the mnemonic phrase. I have memorized several sets of mnemonic phrases myself, so that even if there is a problem with the cold wallet, the assets can be recovered safely.

Comparison between Bitcoin Ecosystem and ETH Ecosystem

Colin: Mr. Hu, you have done some NFT projects in the Bitcoin ecosystem before, but recently it seems that the focus of the entire industry has shifted from the Bitcoin ecosystem to meme coins. Do you think there are still opportunities for the Bitcoin ecosystem in the future? Or will you also pay attention to other ecologies, such as Solana or hot spots on Base?

Hu Yilin: I am not against meme coins. These projects can be played. Talking about the Bitcoin ecosystem, I have always been optimistic about it. But the current problem with the Bitcoin ecosystem is that it has not yet found a particularly good development model, nor has it established a strong enough sense of identity.

From the perspective of the entire industry, the Bitcoin ecosystem has its uniqueness, and one of the reasons why I was optimistic about it was that it could become an option against the ETH ecosystem. The problem with the ETH ecosystem is that its positioning is ambiguous: it wants to insist on decentralization and uphold the punk spirit, but in many aspects it has become centralized. It cannot compare with Bitcoin in terms of decentralization, nor can it compare with Solana in terms of efficiency and pace.

Solana's positioning is very clear. It is centralized, efficient and fast-paced. This positioning attracts those who focus on user experience. If you want a more efficient chain, choose Solana. In comparison, ETH is somewhat neither up nor down, and neither end is happy.

As a company chain, Base is also more inclined to develop in a centralized direction, with the goal of improving efficiency. Although it cannot be said to be completely centralized, it is more centralized than ETH and has taken a clear path of prioritizing efficiency.

The reason why I am optimistic about the Bitcoin ecosystem is that it represents the ideal of decentralization. As a believer in decentralization, I think this direction is still the right one. But the current dilemma of the Bitcoin ecosystem is that both parties cannot please each other. On the one hand, Bitcoin HODLers do not recognize many new projects in the ecosystem, believing that they are essentially “coin speculation” and are variants of altcoins. On the other hand, for users who like to speculate in coins, the Bitcoin ecosystem is inefficient, slow-paced, and has small traffic, making it far less attractive than the Solana ecosystem.

As Bitcoin HODLER, we are very conservative. It is not easy to spend 1% or 2% of our assets to participate in these projects, but it is impossible for us to ALL IN or bet heavily. Because of this conservatism, the Bitcoin ecosystem has difficulty attracting traditional Bitcoin players, and it is also unable to compete for speculative users who like short-term gains.

Nonetheless, I think the Bitcoin ecosystem still has opportunities. For example, in the future, we can no longer pursue the rhythm of "coin speculation", but instead pursue some long-term value projects. NFT on Bitcoin may be one direction. Because Bitcoin has stronger "eternity" and "sturdiness", it may be more convincing in the NFT field.

Future breakthroughs in the Bitcoin ecosystem may rely on the next generation of NFT products. These products need to break away from the logic of mere hype and have more practical gameplay or value. If these new models can be adapted to the Bitcoin ecosystem, I believe it will have a chance to rise again.

Possibilities and problems of decentralized science

Colin: Mr. Hu, what are your next exploration plans? Will it continue to focus on art-related fields, or will it try something new in terms of decentralized science (DeSci) as we talked about before?

Hu Yilin: Regarding decentralized science, I must admit that I am self-aware. I really want to do this, but right now I don't have the motivation or energy to really push for it. This field has a long way to go and is very difficult. Therefore, if someone is willing to do it, I will fully support it, such as being a staff member, consultant, or even a platform. I generally do not easily support projects, but if this project truly develops in the direction of decentralized scientific research and conforms to my concepts and standards, I am willing to support it.

Colin: Indeed, some projects aim to issue coins from the beginning, and they look more like money-making scams.

Hu Yilin: Yes, it is true that some projects are too eager for quick success. For example, rushing to issue coins from the beginning will overdraw the potential of the project. In fact, the core issue of decentralized scientific research is not funding, but influence and consensus. How to build consensus in the academic community is the key.

Funding alone cannot drive scientific research development. If throwing money could solve the problem, China would already have a lot of Nobel Prize winners. China does not lack funds. The problem is that scientific research requires time, atmosphere and cultural accumulation. This kind of accumulation cannot be achieved by spending money. For example, Peking University, although it does not have much funding, has a very profound foundation in both science and liberal arts. This kind of foundation cannot be replicated immediately by spending money, and Tsinghua University or other schools cannot reach this level in the short term.

The principles of decentralized science and decentralized finance are the same. Many projects issue coins from the beginning. To put it bluntly, they are just for financing and making money, but decentralized science is not short of money. The real contradiction in the development of scientific research is that it takes time to build consensus and a cultural atmosphere, rather than relying on issuing coins to attract short-term benefits.

However, I am not completely opposed to issuing coins. It is okay to issue coins sooner or later, but it should not be the starting point of a project, but a tool for later development. Decentralized science requires longer-term planning and more solid advancement, rather than overdrafting expectations from the beginning. Only in this way can it be possible to truly promote the development of this field.

Future plans: the integration of technology and art

Colin: Mr. Hu, you might consider finding a few like-minded people to create a dedicated podcast together. For example, I think it would be great to do a weekly program on the field of decentralized science that you are interested in.

Hu Yilin: Thank you for the suggestion! Actually I do have similar plans. I previously rented a studio in Hong Kong with the intention of exploring digital art. In the future, we may also develop some content in the form of programs, which may not necessarily be podcasts, but may be video programs or other types of creations. We have some relatively advanced MR systems, XR systems, and some scene designs related to digital art. Therefore, we may publish the program on the video account, YouTube or Bilibili. The show could include both art and technology, and even cover topics like academics and decentralized science.

We have some in-depth thoughts on the combination of technology and art. The split between technology and art is actually part of modernity, which only gradually emerged after the Industrial Revolution. In earlier history, technology and art were merged into one, and there was not even a distinction between words. For example, the word "art" can refer to technology, art, or knowledge. This schism is a product of the 18th, 19th, and even 20th centuries. We believe that this division may enter a new integration stage in the future. As the saying goes, "What has been separated for a long time must be reunited." In the future, technology and art may be unified again.

This new integration is not only the combination of art and technology, but also involves philosophy, science, and even the overall trend of academics. For example, we discussed the functional issues of universities earlier: What exactly are universities cultivating? Is the current education model just creating a trap for “successors” to occupy academic resources? This is actually a big problem.

Ponzi schemes exist not only in humanities but also in science and engineering. Many professionally trained talents now seem to be replaceable by AI. Universities have long regarded human resources as their main training target, but in the AI ​​era, these human resources have gradually lost their advantages. The update speed of AI is much faster than the learning speed of humans. The cycle of a human generation may take decades, but AI is evolving almost every day.

Therefore, we need to rethink the meaning of learning. Broadly speaking, why do humans learn? What should I learn? What is the future of universities in a narrow sense? Although many universities may disappear in the transformation, some important inheritance of human civilization still needs to be preserved. So, how do we redefine learning and education will be a big topic.