Sam Blackshear, CTO of Mysten Labs, has left to join Anthropic, a move that has reopened debate over whether high-level crypto talent is shifting into AI.
The source article says the headline was partly written in jest, but the author’s reason for addressing the news was more serious: another bout of pessimism across the crypto sector. In the author’s view, Blackshear’s departure from the Sui-linked team and move to Anthropic is something worth welcoming rather than mourning.
A leading engineer, but the bigger question is what kind of work matters
The article says many media reports focused on Blackshear’s best-known contribution, the creation of the Move programming language, and treated his switch to AI as a major loss for crypto. Some, according to the author, used the moment to revive a familiar conclusion: that the crypto ecosystem is finished.
The author agrees with one part of that framing. Anyone capable of creating a programming language is, in the author’s words, almost certainly a top-tier technical talent. On that basis, Blackshear is described as rare and highly capable from a technical standpoint.
Where the author departs from that media reaction is on the question of what talented people should spend their time doing. The article argues that technical ability alone is not the issue; choosing the right direction matters just as much.
The article frames the issue around “taste” in research
To make that case, the author cites views attributed to three senior academic figures.
Yang Zhenning is quoted as having stressed in a public speech that scientific research requires “taste.”
Shiing-Shen Chern is cited as saying that the question of what counts as good mathematics, and what counts as not-so-good mathematics, is important, and that choosing a good research direction matters greatly.
Shing-Tung Yau is also described as having spoken clearly about the importance of “taste” in research. The article points to a chapter titled “Cultivating Interest and Taste — An Interview with Shing-Tung Yau” in the book Face to Face with Great Mathematicians.
The author’s reading of those remarks is straightforward: talented people should identify the most important problems and commit their time and energy there, rather than spend those resources on work they consider less meaningful.
Why the author does not favor the route represented by Sui
The article then applies that standard to public blockchain development. The author says that after becoming convinced that Ethereum treats decentralization as a non-negotiable goal, while other smart contract Layer 1 chains continue to pursue efficiency by sacrificing decentralization, he stopped paying attention to other Layer 1 smart contract chains.
From that point of view, the author argues that continuing to pour time, effort and capital into building Layer 1 chains that trade decentralization for efficiency is ultimately futile. The article describes that line of work, and those projects, as lacking “taste.”
Sui is explicitly named as one of those projects.
On that basis, the author says it is regrettable that someone like Blackshear spent years of valuable time and energy on such a project. The article adds that even work on zero-knowledge proofs or fully homomorphic encryption would, in the author’s view, have been more worthwhile than continuing to build that kind of Layer 1 smart contract chain. By that standard, leaving Sui and joining Anthropic is presented as a move in the right direction.
The article rejects the claim that crypto is finished
The author says he has already pushed back many times against claims that the crypto ecosystem is over, and had no intention of revisiting the point. This time, though, because the person leaving is seen as a major technical figure, the article returns to the issue from the angle of talent.
To explain the point, the author uses a simple analogy: 1, 10, 100 and 1000. In any industry, the indispensable figure is the “1,” while the zeros that come after it still matter but are not decisive.
In the author’s definition, that “1” is a leader or pioneer who can see the essence of an industry, understand where it is heading, identify the core problem and lead others forward. The “0s,” by contrast, are the large number of participants who follow behind that leadership.
Under that logic, an industry is in real trouble only when the “1” is gone. If the “1” remains, then even if the “0s” temporarily scatter or leave, the situation is not fatal. The article argues that when the next bull market arrives, when the next narrative appears, or when the next hot trend forms, those people will come back again.
For the author, that makes the issue one of timing rather than survival.
Blackshear’s exit is a loss, the author says, but not one that decides crypto’s fate
The article ultimately places Blackshear in the category of an elite engineer but not an industry-defining leader. In the author’s framework, that makes him one of the “0s,” not the “1.”
That is why the author acknowledges his departure as a loss for crypto while arguing that it does not come close to determining the ecosystem’s future or long-term direction.
What matters more, the article says, is whether crypto’s true leaders are still present and still building. The author’s answer is yes: those “1s” are not only still in the sector, but are continuing to sharpen their work and push ahead.
The piece ends with a standard disclaimer saying markets carry risk, investment requires caution, and the article does not constitute investment advice. Readers are advised to judge whether any opinion, view or conclusion in the piece fits their own circumstances, and to bear their own responsibility for any investment decisions.