AI explosion, breakthroughs in quantum computing, restructuring of energy systems — these technological waves are redefining the rules of wealth and rewriting the geopolitical landscape. Sounds promising? But there's a harsh reality: no one can confidently say this time won't end in a crash.

Why? Because debt is piled up like a volcano, technological iteration is so rapid that regulation can't keep pace, combined with the exponential increase in complex factors like great power rivalries and policy hedging. These elements together form a ticking time bomb. The question has never been whether it will explode, but when and how it will happen.

Besides traditional scenarios like financial wars and proxy conflicts, there's an often-overlooked dimension — systemic risks at the biochemical level. Think about it: over half of the global population is crammed into metropolitan areas, and such high-density lifestyles are natural breeding grounds for viruses. This new type of crisis could be more covert and deadly than traditional wars.

I sincerely hope the historical curse that "the industrial revolution inevitably brings disaster" won't repeat itself. But the reality is that global capital is rushing madly into the biomedical field. A friend of mine in medicine recently told me that the development speed of life sciences is frightening, and huge amounts of money are pouring in. The issue is: while the positive technological benefits may be extending lifespans, what about the negative risks? Could it lead to a catastrophic population decline?

Currently, most people's consensus still places longevity at the top, with risk prevention pushed to the back burner. Is this prioritization really reasonable?

For holders of crypto assets like BTC and ETH, every shock in the macro environment could rewrite the rules of the game. Instead of blindly being optimistic, it might be wiser to consider: from which direction will the next systemic volatility strike?