The Technical Commitment of High-Performance Public Chains: An Interview with Conflux Founder Long Fan

On May 15, at the "Forging the Universe · Tides of Hong Kong" Digital Finance and Ecological Development Conference held in Hong Kong, Professor Long Fan, the founder of a public blockchain project, reappeared in the public eye. This Tsinghua alumnus, MIT PhD, and current professor at the University of Toronto has nearly faded from public view in recent years, quietly leading his team in the technological exploration and global expansion of China’s only compliant public blockchain.

In the face of the RWA boom, the surge of Memecoins, and the accelerated development of stablecoins, the pace of the blockchain era is faster than ever. How is this public chain maintaining its technological focus amid all this? As the only compliant Chinese public chain, what long-term thinking is behind its compliant identity?

In this exclusive interview, Professor Long Fan systematically shared his choices of path, his independent judgment on industry trends, and his advice for young developers for the first time.

Entrepreneurial初心 and Technical Foundation

Q: Please briefly introduce yourself. You have multiple identities; which identity would you like everyone to remember first when they think of you? Why?

A: I am a researcher in computer science. You can think of it as what people often call a "scientist"; this might be the simplest identity that encompasses everything I do. Whether it's being the founder of a public chain project, or previously studying at MIT and now teaching at the University of Toronto, it’s actually all part of this identity or the experience of its growth.

Q: If you could only use one sentence to introduce your project, what would it be? Is there a sentence that could make ordinary users immediately remember what you are currently doing?

A: What we are doing now is to persist in building a high-performance public chain based in China or Asia, aiming to become an important infrastructure in the Web 3.0 era. This is what we have always been doing and what we will continue to do.

Q: Was this definition established in 2018, or is it the result of the team's gradual exploration over the past seven to eight years?

A: Our team has been thinking this way since 2018. In trendy terms, it's called "staying true to our original intention," and we have been insisting on doing this.

Q: Currently, your project is related to "stablecoins" and "payments", so compared to other public chains, what are the significant advantages in the areas of stablecoins and payments?

A: I think our biggest advantage in technology 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 is actually achieved without sacrificing the number of nodes or compromising security.

This is a major technical advantage for us and has been validated over the long term. For example, since the launch of our 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. Everyone has seen our active promotion of offshore RMB, stablecoins, etc. We are also focusing on the cooperation with China Telecom for 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 application scenarios.

In fact, all of this explains what we can do as a public chain platform that originated in China and is currently the only compliant public chain platform in the country, as well as our unique advantages in this position. This indeed brings different advantages and changes to our on-chain ecosystem, which is why we focus on these matters.

Compliance is not something that is "fought for", but rather a combination of "long-term belief + path selection".

Q: Recently, you signed a strategic cooperation agreement with your partner for cross-border trade scenarios related to the Belt and Road Initiative. I would now like to know, among the many implementation scenarios mentioned at the meeting, which ones do you think can be implemented relatively quickly?

A: I believe there are two aspects worth noting. In fact, the content released at the conference consists of projects that will have clear progress in the next month or few months, with a predictable implementation path.

For example, the offshore RMB stablecoin that is currently being promoted, our ecosystem partners have everything ready in terms of compliance and other aspects. The main aspect still under negotiation is: in what way to better release the offshore RMB stablecoin so that more people can access it and apply it in these scenarios. Therefore, very soon, a compliant offshore RMB stablecoin will be 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 in our upcoming public chain development strategy.

The second is the BSIM card. The entire research and development process of this technology involves not only software development but also overall coordination with telecom operators and card suppliers. In fact, for a long time, some aspects were not completely within our control. However, we are pleased that the research and coordination work for these technologies has basically concluded recently. We expect that in the coming months, we will launch one or more BSIM cards in some overseas markets of China Telecom, allowing users to truly use BSIM cards. If the results meet expectations, we can anticipate more promotion, and there is even the possibility of collaborating with other operators for promotion.

Q: In fact, your project is one of the few public chain projects that has a significant advantage in compliance. It is not only actively promoted in mainland China but has also achieved good development results in Hong Kong and even in the international market. This identity and positioning are quite unique. Do you think this path can send a positive signal to the entire industry—that Chinese blockchain projects can indeed find a development path that balances both internationalization and localization within a compliance framework?

A: What we have always adhered to is such a route, and the signal we are conveying is telling everyone that compliance is possible and that we can persist in this way.

Now we have become the only compliant public chain in China, which actually has its historical reasons. This is not something we fought for, but rather, during a previous wave of regulation and policies, most teams voluntarily gave up on this matter. Many did this out of short-term strategic considerations, such as the high communication costs with regulators when trying to comply in China, so they chose to migrate to Singapore. Precisely because we insist on a path of compliant development, the compliance costs we bear are actually 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 it is generally believed to be impossible, or that there is no need to try. However, we have always believed that it is possible to achieve this and are willing to put in the effort, even if it means sacrificing some short-term benefits along the way. We firmly believe that, in the long run, this endeavor holds great value.

At the same time, our ideas are quite natural. Most members of our core team graduated from Tsinghua University, and there are also some researchers who studied abroad. We are all engaged in a highly technical, serious endeavor. We wonder, why do we have to go into exile overseas? It is possible to persist in pursuing a path of normal development. We firmly believe that regarding compliance, it is not entirely impossible to communicate with regulators. We are willing to attempt communication and explore what can be done. In fact, during the communication process, we also discovered that regulation is not completely uncommunicative. Everyone has their own starting points, and regulatory agencies also have their positions and considerations. However, as long as both parties are willing to communicate, the logic and reasoning on both sides can gradually be clarified, ultimately leading to a mutually understood solution that can continue to be advanced.

Q: Your project has also been actively expanding in Hong Kong recently. During this process, what role do you think Hong Kong has played? For example, will the policies be more supportive? Will the environment be a bit more relaxed?

A: 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 brand new thing that presents both opportunities and significant risks, it often chooses to first establish a special zone for pilot testing. Blockchain is a typical example of this, and Hong Kong just happens to take on this role. This is because blockchain brings some financial risks, such as capital flow, cross-border regulation, and other issues. For the country, conducting pilot tests in Hong Kong, which is already a place open to capital, may be less pressured, which is the current positioning of Hong Kong. You can think that for quite some time, various applications can be legal in Hong Kong, and there is no need to worry about various policy risks. This environment has directly led to a significant result: compared to the mainland, the compliance costs in Hong Kong are much lower.

In fact, we are looking at this matter from the characteristics of the industry. The industry is currently in a window period. Not just in China, but the vast majority of blockchain projects globally are operating in a distributed manner. In this case, "where people are" and "where the project is registered" are often two separate matters. You will see that many projects recently choose to register in Hong Kong, regardless of where the team members are located. The reason is simple: once it becomes a "Hong Kong project," 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, I have been chatting with people in the industry recently, and there is now a certain sense of urgency in Hong Kong, mainly coming from the United States and other overseas regions. Other places are moving quickly on blockchain matters. Although Hong Kong's policies are relatively open, there is also local reflection: is the current policy stance still too conservative? If we continue to maintain the current pace, we may still miss some key opportunities in the future. This may also be a direction in which Hong Kong needs to further adjust and accelerate its policies in the future.

RWA is evolution, Memecoin is humanity: the dual survival laws of the blockchain world.

Q: We have noticed that you haven't accepted an interview 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 previous market frenzy caused by Memecoin? How do you and your team judge whether a track is a "trend" or a "bubble"? In addition, considering the constant switching of hot topics, will your project choose to actively chase certain market trends, or will you stick to your established technology and strategic path?

A: First of all, I have always viewed it this way: RWA is not a bubble, and stablecoins are not a bubble either. They essentially represent the entire industry’s continuous search for new narratives in the process of overcoming regulatory barriers and breaking through existing framework limitations, in order to optimize their own development paths. This matter itself is meaningful and represents an important step forward for humanity in better utilizing blockchain technology.

In the past, we talked about "stablecoins"; now we talk more about "RWA". However, at its core, they are the same thing; it's just that the concept continues to expand and the narrative evolves. It can be understood that people within the industry are constantly 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 believe this is a good thing, not a bubble.

In fact, the acceptance of these concepts by the outside world changes with time and social context, hence the saying "this time, that time." Take stablecoins as an example; in the beginning, no one was optimistic about stablecoins, thinking they were just an alternative for traders who couldn't cash out. However, nowadays, no one says that anymore. When you find that stablecoins have already become one of the top ten buyers of US Treasury bonds, it proves that their use cases and influence have far exceeded those of cryptocurrencies.