Fu Peng pressed the wrong button.

In his first week in the crypto world, an economist started using the block button to clean up his Twitter feed.

This is probably the most interesting topic on crypto Twitter this weekend. Fu Peng, the man whose account was banned in China for speaking the truth and who has accumulated immense prestige through his image as a "persecuted independent economist," has begun mass-blocking crypto accounts that question him after officially appearing as the chief economist of Xinhuo Group.

The news caused an uproar in the crypto community. Some took screenshots, some mocked, and some directly said that this action was just like "project teams massively blacklisting users before running away with the money."

The action itself is not illegal.

Everyone has the right to decide who appears on their timeline, but this action happened at an extremely sensitive juncture, in an extremely special industry, and with an extremely contradictory person, so it became something worth discussing seriously.

Who is he? In traditional finance, Fu Peng's reputation is built on one thing: speaking his mind. His speech at HSBC Private Bank, discussing the shrinking middle class, insufficient demand, and structural recession, was repeatedly deleted after its release, yet it circulated on mirror accounts for months. Subsequently, his WeChat and short video platform accounts were all banned. In an environment where everyone generally chose "strategic silence," he stood on stage and spoke some unpopular truths, and then paid the price. This act demonstrated integrity. And it is precisely because of this that he has accumulated a group of people who truly appreciate him, not because of the sophistication of his theoretical framework, but because he is willing to publicly stand on a certain position, even if that position makes him uncomfortable. Last year, Fu Peng underwent surgery, and this year he has restarted his career as the chief economist of Xinhuo Group. On April 20th, the official announcement was made, and Xinhuo's stock price surged over 22% that day. On April 23rd, he took the stage at the Hong Kong Web3 Carnival, delivering his first public speech since joining the cryptocurrency circle, proposing the "FICC+C" framework to incorporate crypto assets into the allocation system of traditional fixed income, foreign exchange, and commodities, arguing that Bitcoin has evolved from an early "faith asset" into a compliant commodity that can be allocated by institutions. The speech was of good quality, with a clear framework and solid historical analogies. This was a brilliant entry. Then he started blocking people. The clash of two systems To understand this, one must first understand two completely different trust operating systems. In the world of traditional FICC, trust is established through institutional endorsement, qualification certification, and selective interaction. Your credibility is built upon factors such as who you are, what research reports you publish, and the level of meetings you attend. Simultaneously, you have the right to control your own information environment. It's normal, even a sign of professionalism, to not want to discuss matters with retail investors or respond to public, questioning inquiries. Fu Peng has a history of this; reportedly, between 2021 and 2024, he repeatedly deleted WeChat friends and purged early supporters. In traditional finance, this isn't news; at most, it's seen as "a rather aloof person." The trust system in the crypto world is fundamentally different. The SBF case left the industry with more than just a $10 billion hole; it also created a systemic immune mechanism: external authority is practically zero, or even negative, because the greater the prestige, the more suspicious the motives. Once you enter this industry, regardless of how many titles you hold off-chain, your credibility is constantly being publicly updated daily. What you say isn't important; what matters is what you do, whether your holdings are transparent, whether you were there when the market was at its worst, and whether you publicly took responsibility for your judgment when the stocks you were bullish on dropped by 80%. These are the dimensions that matter in scoring. The crypto industry has evolved an antibody after being repeatedly exploited by celebrities and professors. Therefore, Fu Peng's use of the traditional FICC default value—"filtering noise and selecting interactions"—to operate his Twitter activity in the crypto world is perfectly reasonable from his system's perspective. He has always served large institutional investors, and Xinhuo Group positions itself as "institutional-grade compliant digital finance." For him, the bustling crypto Twitter scene is a distraction. However, from the crypto world's perspective, it's a wrong signal: I'm here to output, not to be scrutinized. Both systems have their own logic, but they are incompatible. What, then, is the passport here? To make a potentially uncomfortable assessment: Fu Peng's entry into this field is on the right track. Macroeconomists are scarce in the crypto industry. Having someone who truly understands the logic of FICC (Fixed Income, Currencies, and Commodities) conduct research and redefine the position of crypto assets using a mature asset allocation framework is of substantial significance to the institutionalization process of the industry. His assessment in his speech that the first half of the crypto industry's development is over, and the second half is about institutionalization and compliance, I believe, is both on the right track and at the right time. He himself has been very candid: he didn't participate in faith-based trading early on because "real capital won't over-intervene in a phase of insufficient certainty." This is the truth, and a truly professional perspective, far superior to many traditional financial figures who come to give trading advice. However, a professional perspective and acceptance of scrutiny are not mutually exclusive. Whether it's CZ, Vitalik, or Fu Peng's bosses Li Lin and Du Jun, they have all faced criticism and scrutiny on Twitter. Vitalik writes a long self-critical article every few years, acknowledging early design flaws in Ethereum. They each have their own problems, but what they have in common is that they are verifiable. This is the passport to success in the crypto world. If Fu Peng wants to truly establish himself here, it's not about clearing his timeline with muted posts, but about making another publicly verifiable prediction. He's currently saying the macro bear market may continue until the end of the year, advising institutions to control their positions and wait. Okay, this judgment can be verified by the market. If it's right, credibility comes in. If it's wrong, explain the reasons, update the framework, and start again. This is what this circle recognizes. Fu Peng's habits, brought from the traditional financial world, might need updating here. It's not that his professional skills or macro-level framework are flawed; these are his strengths and the source of his value. What needs updating is the default assumption hidden behind the mute button: I have the right to control who can speak to me. In traditional finance, this reflects status. In the crypto world, it erodes trust. He said in his speech, "The paradigm thinking you've been familiar with for the past 15 years may undergo a huge change." This statement can also be applied to him: several things you developed in traditional finance over 15 years won't work here. One of them, quite pointless, is this mute action.