Last night I came across the news that Vietnam's high-speed rail ultimately chose Siemens, and I was lost in thought staring at that signing photo for a while—this north-south arterial route, which has been entangled for twenty years, ended up selecting the German proposal with the highest bid after discussing plans with several countries. My friends in the foreign trade circle were confused at the time: "How can they choose this option when the costs can be 30% cheaper and the technology is not inferior?" But after reading the entire report, I suddenly felt a chill down my spine: Vietnam is not buying the most advanced technology, but rather 'geopolitical security'; it's not about cost-effectiveness, but about 'risk hedging.'

This $60 billion decision is like a mirror—reflecting the harshest realities of the crypto world. While all chains are focusing on stacking TPS and emphasizing decentralization, why is Vietnam willing to hand over its national lifeline to a solution that is neither the most cutting-edge technology nor the cheapest option?

The answer is actually very simple. Siemens has been rooted in Vietnam since 1993 and has established a deep localization system. Which cryptocurrency project that has truly survived several market cycles does not engrave "localization" and "trust accumulation" into its very bones?

This has made me start rethinking my investment logic. While the entire market is chasing high-performance public chains, I began looking for "Siemens-style projects" that can navigate through geopolitical and market cycles—those projects that are not in a hurry to compete on TPS and are not blindly expanding.

Recently, while studying those leading stablecoin projects, I suddenly had a moment of realization. The truly reliable stablecoin design indeed has a flavor of German engineering: building safety redundancy through over-collateralization, not afraid of spending extra costs; establishing long-term trust through a fully transparent mechanism on the chain, not relying on marketing brainwashing; achieving ecological compatibility through multi-chain adaptation, not pursuing single-chain monopoly.

The comparison is particularly heart-wrenching: why is everyone chasing trends, piling on new features, and competing over growth numbers, while truly safe projects are quietly doing "boring" things—ensuring adequate collateral, ensuring transparency in mechanisms, and ensuring ecological stability. The logic of Vietnam's high-speed rail choosing Siemens is the same as investors choosing reliable stablecoins: when you are betting on a future of several decades, you don't choose the flashiest option, but rather the one that is most trustworthy.