Article Author: Lesley, MetaEra
On May 15, at the "Forging Ahead · Tides of Hong Kong" Conflux Digital Finance and Ecological Development Conference held at the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre, Professor Long Fan, founder of Conflux Network, reappeared in the public eye. This Tsinghua "Yao Class" alumnus, MIT PhD, and current professor at the University of Toronto has almost faded from public view in recent years, not accepting media interviews, quietly leading his team to advance Conflux as the only compliant public chain in China in terms of technical exploration and global expansion.
In the face of the RWA craze, the Memecoin surge, and the accelerated development of stablecoins, the pace of the blockchain era is faster than ever. How does Conflux maintain its technical focus amidst this? What long-term thinking underpins Conflux's compliant identity as the only compliant Chinese public chain?
In this exclusive interview, Professor Long Fan systematically shared his path choices, independent judgments on industry trends, and advice for young developers for the first time.

Entrepreneurial Original Intention and the Technical Foundation of Conflux

MetaEra: Please briefly introduce yourself. You are a PhD from MIT, a Tsinghua Yao Class alumnus, and also the founder of Conflux, along with many other identities. If you were to introduce yourself, which identity would you like everyone to remember first? Why?
Professor Long Fan: I am a researcher in computer science, essentially studying computer science. You can think of it as what people commonly refer to as a "scientist," which might be the simplest identity that encompasses everything I do. Whether as the founder of Conflux, or during my studies at MIT, or now teaching at the University of Toronto, all of these are part of this identity or the experiences that have shaped it.
MetaEra: If you could only use one sentence to introduce Conflux, how would you say it? Is there a sentence that can help ordinary users quickly remember what Conflux is currently doing?
Professor Long Fan: I think what Conflux is currently doing is insisting on being a high-performance public chain based in China or Asia, aspiring to become an important infrastructure in the Web 3.0 era. This is what we have always been doing and will continue to do.
MetaEra: Is this definition something we established back in 2018, or is it a result that our team has gradually explored over the past seven or eight years?
Professor Long Fan: Our team has thought this way since 2018. To use a trendy phrase, it's called "not forgetting our original intention," and we have been insisting on this.
MetaEra: Currently, Conflux's Twitter profile defines the project in relation to "stablecoins" and "payments." Compared to Ethereum, Solana, and other public chains, what significant advantages does Conflux have in the area of stablecoins and payments?
Professor Long Fan: I think Conflux's biggest technical advantage is that our overall technical architecture achieves high-performance TPS without sacrificing decentralization and security. Our network can support 3000-6000 TPS, and the confirmation time is also very fast. All of this has been achieved without sacrificing the number of nodes or security.
This is a major technical advantage for us and has been validated over a long period. For example, since the launch of the Conflux mainnet, we have maintained zero security incidents, reflecting the stability and credibility of our architecture. What we are doing is based on our unique market or industry position, focusing on what we are better at or what we should be doing. You can see that we are actively promoting offshore RMB, stablecoins, and we are also focusing on collaborating with China Telecom on the BSIM card. You can think of the BSIM card as an entry point into the blockchain world; it is a key channel for us to connect with real-world application scenarios.
All of this illustrates what we, as the only compliant public chain platform originating from China, can do and our unique advantages in this position, which indeed brings different advantages and changes to our on-chain ecosystem. This is why we focus on these matters.

Compliance is not "earned," but rather "long-term belief + path choice"

MetaEra: Recently, Conflux signed a strategic cooperation agreement with partners for cross-border trade scenarios under the Belt and Road Initiative. I would like to understand which of the many landing scenarios mentioned at the meeting you believe can be implemented relatively quickly?**
Professor Long Fan: I think there are two aspects worth noting. The content released at the meeting includes projects that will have clear progress in the next month or few months, with predictable landing paths.
For example, we are currently promoting the offshore RMB stablecoin, and our ecological partner AnchorX is ready in terms of compliance and other aspects. The main aspect still under negotiation is how to better release the offshore RMB stablecoin in a way that allows more people to access it and apply it to these scenarios. So soon, there will be a compliant offshore RMB stablecoin running on our chain, and we will also launch a series of ecological solutions to help this project expand its influence. This will be a priority direction for our public chain development strategy moving forward.
The second is the BSIM card. The entire technical development process—not just software development but also the overall coordination with telecom operators and card suppliers—has not been entirely within our control for a long time. However, we are pleased that the technical development and coordination work has basically concluded recently, and we expect to launch one or more BSIM cards in some of China Telecom's overseas markets in the coming months, allowing users to truly use the BSIM card. If the results meet expectations, we can look forward to more promotions, and there may even be collaborations with other operators for promotion. One of the speakers at the meeting was Dongxin HePing, one of the largest credit card manufacturers in the world. They are motivated to treat this as a possible pilot and increase investment in this direction in the future.
MetaEra: In fact, Conflux is currently one of the few public chain projects with significant advantages in compliance. Not only is it actively promoting landing in mainland China, but it has also achieved good development results in Hong Kong and even international markets. This identity and positioning are quite special. Do you believe that this path can send a positive signal to the entire industry—that is, Chinese blockchain projects can indeed find a development path that combines internationalization and localization within a compliance framework?**
Professor Long Fan: We have always adhered to this route, and the signal we convey is that compliance is possible, and we can persist in this.
Now that we have become the only compliant public chain in China, it actually has its historical reasons. This is not something we fought for; rather, during a previous wave of regulation and policy, most teams actively gave up on this matter. Many did so out of short-term strategic considerations, such as the high communication costs with regulators in China, leading them to migrate to Singapore, which is a choice made by many teams. It is precisely because we insist on a compliant development path that the compliance costs we bear are very high. This also means that in many decisions, we must be more restrained. For example, we cannot issue new tokens at will.
Another aspect is that many people were previously unwilling to try this because they generally believed it was impossible or unnecessary to attempt. But we have always believed that this is achievable and are willing to put in the effort, even if it means sacrificing some short-term benefits in the process. We firmly believe that, in the long run, this is of great value.
At the same time, our thinking is quite natural. Most members of our core team graduated from Tsinghua, and some have studied abroad as researchers. We are engaged in a very technically oriented and serious endeavor. We wonder why we must go into exile overseas? It is possible to persist in finding a normal development path. We have always believed that compliance is not entirely impossible to communicate with regulators. We are willing to try to communicate and explore what can be done. In fact, during the communication process, we also found that regulation is not entirely uncommunicative. Everyone has their starting point, and regulatory agencies have their positions and considerations. But as long as both parties are willing to communicate, the logic and reasons on both sides can gradually be clarified, ultimately finding a mutually understood solution that can continue to be advanced.
MetaEra: In fact, Conflux has also been actively laying out in Hong Kong recently. In this process, what role do you think Hong Kong plays? For example, does the policy support seem stronger? Is the environment a bit more relaxed?**
Professor Long Fan: First of all, Hong Kong can now be understood as a "special zone" for blockchain. We can understand it this way: when China faces a new thing that presents both opportunities and huge risks, it often chooses to first establish a special zone for pilot projects. Blockchain is a typical example, and Hong Kong happens to take on this role. Because blockchain brings some financial risks, such as capital flow and cross-border regulation issues. For the country, it may be less pressured to pilot in Hong Kong, a place that is already capital open. This is Hong Kong's current positioning. You can think that for a considerable period, various applications can be legal in Hong Kong without worrying about various policy risks. This environment directly leads to a significant result: compared to the mainland, the compliance costs in Hong Kong are much lower.
In fact, we view this matter from the characteristics of the industry. The industry is currently in a window period. Not only in China, but the vast majority of blockchain projects worldwide are distributed in their operations. In this case, "where people are" and "where the project is registered" are often two separate matters. You will see that many projects, regardless of where team members are located, choose to register their projects in Hong Kong. The reason is simple: once it becomes a "Hong Kong project," advancing compliance becomes much easier, and it is less likely to encounter unnecessary troubles. From this perspective, Hong Kong is in a natural policy dividend period, which is a very important opportunity window.
Of course, recently when I chatted with people in the industry, there is also a certain sense of urgency in Hong Kong, mainly stemming from the United States and other overseas regions. Other places are moving quickly regarding blockchain. Although Hong Kong's policies are relatively open, Hong Kong is also reflecting: is the current policy strength still too conservative? If it continues to maintain the current pace, it may still miss some key opportunities in the future. This may also be a direction that Hong Kong needs to further adjust and accelerate in terms of policy.

RWA is Evolution, Memecoin is Humanity: The Survival Laws of Two Extremes in the Blockchain World

MetaEra: We have noticed that you haven't accepted interviews for a while. Therefore, we particularly hope to take this opportunity to hear you talk about the changes the entire industry has experienced over the past few years. For example, how do you view the recently popular RWA sector and the market frenzy triggered by Memecoin? How do you and the Conflux team judge whether a track is a "trend" or a "bubble"? Additionally, in the face of constantly shifting hotspots, will Conflux choose to actively chase certain market trends, or will it stick to its established technical and strategic path?**
Professor Long Fan: First of all, I have always viewed RWA as not a bubble, and stablecoins are not a bubble either. They essentially represent the entire industry’s ongoing search for new narratives to optimize its development path while breaking through regulatory barriers and existing framework limitations. This matter itself is meaningful and is an important step forward for humanity in better utilizing blockchain technology.
Previously, we talked about "stablecoins," and now we talk more about "RWA," but essentially they are the same thing; it’s just that the concepts are constantly expanding, and the narratives are evolving. It can be understood that people within the industry are continuously correcting and upgrading the narrative, reinterpreting how blockchain should be applied in a way that is easier for the outside world to understand and accept. Therefore, I think this is a good thing, not a bubble.
In fact, the degree of acceptance of these concepts by the outside world changes with time and social context, so-called "this moment, that moment." Take stablecoins as an example; initially, no one was optimistic about stablecoins, thinking they were merely a substitute for traders unable to cash out, but now, no one says that anymore. When you find that stablecoins are among the top ten buyers of U.S. Treasury bonds, it indicates that their use cases and influence have far exceeded cryptocurrency trading itself. The main application scenarios of stablecoins now are not for speculation but are reflected in payments, transfers, especially in cross-border trade. Of course, trading scenarios still exist, but they are no longer mainstream. Things are constantly evolving, and RWA is no exception.
At first, people’s impression of stablecoins was as "speculative tools," which many Chinese viewed as speculative, improper, or even a bubble. But now we see that through RWA, some actual assets can be digitally packaged, providing new sources of liquidity for assets lacking liquidity in the real economy. At this point, people suddenly realize: RWA can serve the real economy and has real value. But fundamentally, this could have been done before; it’s just that it is now being advanced under a different name and narrative.
Ultimately, this is the entire blockchain industry changing its perspective to convey the same core message to the outside: blockchain technology is valuable and has real application space. Therefore, I believe RWA is definitely not a bubble; it is merely an upgrade in the narrative of our industry, a way to engage in dialogue with the times.
MetaEra: So you think Memecoin is a bubble.
Professor Long Fan: I think Memecoin is an ancient human need. It’s quite simple; the urge to gamble is an ancient human need. If gambling is necessarily a bubble, then Las Vegas casinos should have closed down long ago.
Speaking of Memecoin, my view is that humans inherently have a primitive need to "take a gamble," and Memecoin is essentially an expression of this need, a form of "gambling in the crypto era."
Like gambling, Memecoin has its dealers, and even the President of the United States can be a dealer at this table. In Las Vegas casinos, there are also dealers; the casino itself is the dealer. So if you ask whether this thing is a "bubble," I think the answer depends on your attitude towards "gambling."
If you believe that the need for gambling should not exist, you might see it as a bubble; but if you acknowledge that there is an inherent human desire for risk, excitement, and uncertainty, then it is merely another form of expression, another table in the game.
At this Memecoin table, people bet, chase trends, and ultimately participate in a game. Once we see through the essence of this mechanism, there is no need to overly criticize or attack it. Ultimately, everyone is just playing a game in this "casino," and that’s all.
MetaEra: The Conflux team has consistently adhered to the "Asian high-performance public chain" technical route, remaining true to its original intention from 2018 to now. If we extend the timeline to five years or even longer, do you hope that what Conflux is doing will still be the same as now?**
Professor Long Fan: I think we will continue to insist on this direction. Of course, if I have any hopes, it is that I hope the things we insist on will make significant progress, even if what we do and how we do it differs from many teams.
Many teams' approach is to quickly follow market trends and launch a new project within two weeks whenever a hotspot appears. But our team is relatively more restrained and stable in strategy. The things we promote often have a slower pace; on one hand, the direction itself requires time to settle, and on the other hand, it indeed requires our long-term efforts to push forward. But we firmly believe that opportunities in this direction exist. Especially against the backdrop of ongoing changes in the international situation, the direction we insist on is gradually revealing its value and significance. This value may not be very obvious in the short term, but in the long run, it is solid and clear.
So if we talk about my expectations for the future, it is that four or five years from now, the things we are doing will definitely achieve greater progress than now. I am willing to believe that this continuous investment will eventually yield returns.
MetaEra: In fact, we see that many developers are continuously entering Web 3.0. So if new developers want to enter the industry now, would you advise them to work on underlying infrastructure, application layers, or some other directions?**
Professor Long Fan: I think it actually depends on the individual developer's or team's situation.
Currently, in the Chinese blockchain industry, there are mainly two styles of working. The first is adept at seizing short-term opportunities, rapidly iterating, and quickly experimenting. There are indeed many hotspots in this industry, as well as many attention-grabbing scenarios that can be rapidly amplified. If you are a team with strong execution and a sense of rhythm, willing to actively chase hotspots and trends, then I think you can try more application-layer directions. Such opportunities do exist. But the premise is whether you can truly adapt to this rhythm. Adapting to this rhythm may mean that you need to continuously chase various hotspots and try various related products or gameplay.
The other approach is to choose a direction that can be invested in for the long term, whether it is infrastructure, a specific type of application, or a technical gap at the Infra level. As long as you confirm that this direction has real, unmet needs, you can choose to focus on cultivating it. The challenge of this approach is that it requires a genuine belief in long-termism. Because the entire industry is full of short-term temptations and distractions, with highly volatile flows of capital, users, and resources. Sticking to it in such an environment is not easy. But conversely, the advantage of this path is that there are not many people truly willing to do long-term things, so the "real competition" faced is not that intense. The biggest challenge may not be others, but yourself—whether you can continue to invest, withstand cycles, and whether you have enough belief and endurance to truly consolidate resources.
Therefore, I believe that each team ultimately needs to return to its own endowment and rhythm, finding the path that suits them best.
MetaEra: At this conference, we also saw many projects being built on the Conflux ecosystem. I would like to ask, does Conflux still have relevant resources or platforms to support young developers in their continuous growth and exploration? Will there be some incentive mechanisms in the future to help more developers join the ecosystem and participate deeply in its construction?**
Professor Long Fan: Our ecosystem has always had various ways to incentivize developers, and we are continuously adjusting and optimizing these incentive methods. In fact, we have tried many different paths and models. Our goal is to find projects that are willing to establish long-term cooperative relationships with us, rather than just short-term collaborations.
In fact, this industry also has many "migrant" developers—they often move between different public chains following short-term incentives. But for Conflux, we focus more on long-term development, so these developers' contributions to the sustainable construction of the ecosystem are relatively limited. From our perspective, we prefer to support those who are truly willing to land, willing to invest, and have clear long-term plans. We hope to establish solid cooperation with them to promote the common growth of the ecosystem.
As for another situation, for example, some developers may have already created similar products in other ecosystems and think they can just "Copy & Paste" the code over to deploy it, then apply for a grant, expecting to receive funding of twenty to thirty thousand or even fifty thousand dollars. Our support for this model will be relatively limited.