2026-01-09 22:27:26

Don't get it wrong: although large-scale hot wars are rare, the gameplay remains the same—governments pour real money and bring all core capabilities back home across all sectors. It's just a different battleground; this isn't just about trade barriers, but a strategic game of preparedness.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

15 Likes

Reward
15
10
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

CryptoTarotReader

· 21h ago

Moving this set back to the domestic market, in plain terms, it's a long-term resistance rhythm. After playing for so long, if you still can't see through it, it's really time to wake up. Core capabilities are not in your own hands; the feeling of being choked is uncomfortable, right? This game has been laid out long ago; it all depends on who can hold on until the end. Instead of obsessing over trade wars, it's better to understand the underlying logic. In fact, those who truly win are the ones who hold their destiny in their own hands.

View OriginalReply0

BridgeNomad

· 01-12 08:15

ngl this reads like the classic TVL migration playbook we saw with cross-chain wars... except now it's geopolitical liquidity pools. governments basically running their own optimal routing strategies to consolidate core infrastructure back home. same exploit vector, different chain.

Reply0

NeverVoteOnDAO

· 01-12 07:58

Basically, it's just a name change for an economic war. I've seen through it a long time ago.

View OriginalReply0

PerennialLeek

· 01-11 18:54

It's a total mess. The industry chain returning has been obvious for a long time. Pouring real money in, whoever controls the core technology wins. Changing the surface but not the substance, the nature of the conflict has changed, but the tactics remain the same. The players are quite clever. This wave is definitely not just about tariffs on the surface. Everyone is fighting for dominance in discourse and control of the industry chain. Whoever achieves independence first won't be held hostage. Being prepared is wise; defense is always the best offense. Everyone is doing the same thing—it's a matter of who has stronger execution.

View OriginalReply0

NotSatoshi

· 01-09 22:57

Basically, it's the de-dollarization in progress. Investing real money in chips and supply chains is the real deal. Actually, it's been obvious for a long time, just a superficial change. The years when the choke points appeared should have been understood clearly. It's a bit late to react now. This game isn't over yet. In the long run, I remain optimistic about the path of self-reliance and control. Isn't it just an upgraded version of economic competition? The core is still about vying for control of the industrial chain.

View OriginalReply0

BackrowObserver

· 01-09 22:56

Forget it, I've heard this way too many times. Reclaim core capabilities? First, get your own house in order. There is indeed a big game plan, but whether it really works depends on whether there's enough money. The saying "better safe than sorry" is quite appropriate, but I'm just worried it might end up being useless in the end. Over the years, I've heard too many grand narratives; and what’s the result? Everyone just does their own thing. The key question is, what about ordinary people? This game is being played, but it ends up impacting the common folks. From another perspective, instead of all these flashy tricks, it's better to focus on solid fundamentals. Hey, this logic isn't actually wrong, but the execution always falls a bit short. It sounds good, but history tells us that these big strategies are often not that clever.

View OriginalReply0

SocialFiQueen

· 01-09 22:42

We can't hold back anymore; the confrontation of national destiny is so blatant. Basically, it's de-globalization and returning to local production. A grand strategy? Nice words, but it's all about competition. Core capabilities are internal circulation; we need to sharpen our own knives. Changing the soup but not the medicine; just pour in real money. Thinking of the industrial transfers from a couple of years ago, now they are all just stories. This game is ongoing; whoever slips up first loses. Do you understand what strategic depth means? Trade barriers are just surface articles; the real knives are right here.

View OriginalReply0

PanicSeller

· 01-09 22:31

Basically, it's self-sufficiency in the new era. It sounds grand but is actually just forcing the supply chain to flow back. This trick has been played for thousands of years, just with a different name. The real big game is much more covert than a trade war. Wait, isn't this just a disguised form of closed-door isolation? I'm thinking, with so much money spent on localization, can efficiency keep up? Same old story, the form of the war has changed, but the essence remains the same. The gameplay is outdated, brother.

View OriginalReply0

LayerZeroJunkie

· 01-09 22:30

Yes, that's correct. Essentially, it's still competition; it's just a different approach. This round is indeed a high-stakes game, not just a simple trade war. It's really about self-control and independence; no one wants to be held hostage. To put it plainly, the underlying logic hasn't changed; only the methods have been upgraded. The autonomy of the supply chain definitely needs to be prioritized on the agenda.

View OriginalReply0

PonziDetector

· 01-09 22:29

Basically, it's an escalation of the economic war, same old tricks with a new coat of paint. Core technology bottlenecks will eventually have to be self-sufficient. This game is played very deep, with barriers built from real gold and silver. Trade war? Ha, that's just surface-level talk. Now I understand what it means to prepare for a rainy day. Spending money to bring things back home is essentially building a fortress. In this big game of chess, whoever falls behind is GG.

View OriginalReply0