This is the strongest era of centralized cryptocurrency in history, as well as the era with the highest prices ever recorded.
Written by: Sima Cong, AI Channel
I am focusing on a new dominant narrative and assessing its value: transitioning from the narrative of "decentralization" to "traditional centralized institutions with compliance narratives."
I ponder a question: Is this a "new bull market," or merely a "flash in the pan before a reshuffle"?
Do not say that I did not warn you
Technology should be a ladder for human progress, but why is it always ensnared by greed and speculation?
Transitioning from the narrative of "decentralization" to "traditional centralized institutions with compliance narratives," the constant remains the same: harvesting profits from the masses.
Since the introduction of the stablecoin bill, you will find that the entire world has gone extremely crazy, with "traditional listed companies, investment institutions, and Wall Street becoming the biggest contributors to this speculative frenzy."
The victims are no longer limited to traditional cryptocurrency speculators… the risks have spilled over into the traditional world and affected more people, spilling over into traditional finance.
Since the introduction of the stablecoin bill, the victims have expanded beyond the zero-sum game among cryptocurrency speculators to a broader audience.
Although the current cryptocurrency market size is still much smaller than the traditional financial market that triggered the 2008 crisis, the underlying logic is consistent: high-leverage speculation lacking transparency, asset values detached from fundamentals, and the contagious nature of risks across different financial segments. When a pharmaceutical company (Windtree) also begins to "establish a BNB reserve strategy," the transmission of cross-industry risks is indeed alarming. This means that non-professional companies, in pursuit of short-term market trends, may allocate core assets to areas they are not skilled in and that are highly volatile. Once the market reverses, it could harm the company's fundamentals and the interests of ordinary shareholders.
Let us recognize the reality: transitioning from the narrative of "decentralization" to "traditional centralized institutions with compliance narratives," this is the strongest era of centralized cryptocurrency in history, as well as the era with the highest prices ever recorded.
The "Mainstreaming" Path of Cryptocurrency Assets
2009–2017
Decentralization, anonymity, anti-censorship
2018–2023
Rise of exchanges, institutional entry, regulatory probing
2024–2025
Compliance, securitization, Wall Street integration
Changing Narratives: Who is Leading the Current Cryptocurrency World?
Traditional Financial Institutions
(Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, BlackRock)----------------------- Promoting ETFs, issuing stablecoins, packaging tokenized securities
Listed Companies
(MicroStrategy, Windtree, Qianxun Technology)--------- Holding cryptocurrency assets, hyping concepts, boosting stock prices
Wall Street Investment Banks
(Galaxy Digital, Grayscale) ------------------- Promoting token securitization, structured products
Political Figures
(Trump, CZ, Musk)-------------------------- Utilizing cryptocurrency narratives to gain support, funding, and influence
The risks of cryptocurrency assets are spilling over into the traditional financial system, affecting a wider scope and becoming harder to control, much like in 2008.
Lessons from the 2008 Financial Crisis:
Ø Financial derivatives detached from the real economy
Ø Uncontrolled leverage, layered risk transmission
Ø Regulatory lag, systemic risk explosion
Ø Ultimately borne by the general public
This is the starting point of everything now
In fact, Trump's "crypto-friendly" stance is a clear shift in his recent campaign strategy and political maneuvering. During his presidency, although the Treasury and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) showed some openness to the cryptocurrency industry (for example, allowing banks to provide crypto custody services), Trump himself was initially skeptical of cryptocurrencies, even calling Bitcoin a "scam based on air."
His current positive attitude is more about courting young voters, tech voters, and cryptocurrency holders, contrasting sharply with the Biden administration's policies (especially with SEC Chairman Gary Gensler, who is viewed as "anti-crypto" by the industry).
Party Divisions: Even within the Republican Party, there are differing views on cryptocurrencies, with factions that embrace innovation and free markets, as well as conservatives concerned about their use in illegal activities and money laundering.
Trump's second term (starting in 2025) quickly pushes for crypto-friendly policies, including establishing a strategic Bitcoin reserve in March 2025 (based on confiscated $17 billion in Bitcoin) and signing the "GENIUS Act" on July 19 to regulate stablecoins. These measures position the U.S. as the "global crypto capital," with Bitcoin prices soaring above $100,000.
He appoints close allies (like Paul Atkins as SEC Chairman) and creates the position of "Crypto and AI Czar" (David Sacks), promoting regulatory easing and suspending 12 investigations into companies like Coinbase and Binance.
Potential Attack Points After the Democrats Take Office
Bipartisan Divisions:
The Democratic Party has traditionally taken a cautious stance on cryptocurrencies, with the Biden administration (2021-2025) pushing for regulation (such as EO 14067), and lawmakers like Elizabeth Warren warning about the money laundering risks of crypto. In May 2025, the Democrats introduced the "End Crypto Corruption Act" to oppose Trump's policies.
There is also division within the Republican Party, with 13 Republicans switching sides on July 15, 2025, opposing the "GENIUS Act," indicating that the policy is not a mainstream bipartisan issue.
Possibilities for Attack:
Legal Accountability: After leaving office, Trump's family business (like World Liberty Financial) may face SEC investigations, especially regarding the $500 million profits from the $TRUMP token, which are suspected of insider trading. In May 2025, Richard Blumenthal initiated a preliminary investigation.
Political Accusations: The Democrats may use congressional hearings to expose Trump's conflicts of interest (such as a $75 million deal with Justin Sun), damaging his reputation.
Policy Reversal: The Democrats taking office may revoke the Bitcoin reserve and sell off $17 billion in assets, undermining confidence in the crypto market.
A Correct Perspective on Stablecoins and Legislation
The early Bitcoin and Ethereum emphasized "anti-censorship," "self-control of assets," and "breaking free from traditional financial oppression," representing a form of anti-establishment technological utopianism.
Today, the U.S. is attempting to embrace crypto through legislation like the "Stablecoin Act," and the driving force behind this change is no longer anonymous geeks like Satoshi Nakamoto, but rather companies like Circle, BlackRock, Franklin Templeton, Fidelity, Visa, Mastercard, and even pharmaceutical companies.
For example, Hong Kong.
The Hong Kong "Stablecoin Regulation" will take effect on August 1, 2025, while also launching stablecoin license applications.
The licensing for stablecoin issuers will not be conducted through a self-downloaded form and unified written application process, but rather will be arranged through an invitation application system.
According to a source, in practical terms, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA), which is responsible for regulating licenses, will communicate in advance with potential stablecoin license applicants to understand whether they meet the basic application qualifications. Only after obtaining basic approval in pre-communication will the HKMA issue the application form.
Another source revealed that the application scenario is one of the most valued factors by regulators, indicating that the HKMA is very cautious about issuing licenses.
In fact, HKMA President Yu Weiwen also made similar statements at the annual meeting of the Hong Kong Investment Funds Association on June 23. He stated that stablecoin applicants must be able to provide a concrete and practical use case, "if there is no application scenario, they may not even receive the application form."
Currently, around fifty to sixty companies are interested in applying for a stablecoin license in Hong Kong, including state-owned enterprises, financial institutions, and internet giants from mainland China.
Hong Kong has very strict requirements for risk management for stablecoin issuers, especially anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regulations, which are almost on par with banks and electronic wallets, making the entry threshold very high, with only a few licenses to be issued in the first phase.
On May 21, 2025, the Hong Kong Legislative Council officially passed the "Stablecoin Regulation Draft," and the Hong Kong stock market began to hype stablecoin concept stocks, which subsequently expanded to the entire digital asset concept.
In addition to state-owned enterprises, internet giants, and traditional financial institutions, there is a trend of diversification among companies applying for stablecoin licenses. A Hong Kong-listed medical company, Huajian Medical (01931.HK), announced on the evening of July 17 that it plans to build a "NewCo+RWA" Web3 exchange ecosystem centered on high-tech medical innovation assets and issue a proprietary stablecoin (IVDDollar). The company mainly engages in the research, development, production, and sales of in vitro diagnostic medical instruments and consumables (IVD products), with a revenue of 3.162 billion yuan for the 2024 fiscal year and a net profit attributable to shareholders of 274 million yuan. On July 14, the company also announced that its board had resolved to pursue a dual primary listing on NASDAQ.
On July 18, 2024, while preparing to establish a stablecoin licensing system, the HKMA approved three groups of potential issuers from over 40 applications to enter the stablecoin testing sandbox. The three groups of sandbox testers are: Yuan Coin Innovation Technology Co., Ltd.; JD Coin Chain Technology (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd.; a joint venture established by Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong), Animoca Brands, and HKT. These three issuers are at different stages of testing within the sandbox.
Asymmetric Imagination Space
The cryptocurrency world is driving and wrapping all forces around this fantasy: the implementation of the stablecoin bill is beneficial for speculation!?
But the question is: after stablecoins become compliant, are they a new source of incremental investment channels on-chain?
Is reality really like this?
The "GENIUS Act" clearly regulates payment-type stablecoins. First, the act imposes strict entry management on stablecoin issuers, prohibiting them from providing interest on the stablecoins they issue. The issuers of stablecoins must meet bank-level compliance regulatory requirements, and stablecoin issuers established or registered outside the U.S. must register with the OCC if they operate within the U.S.; they must also hold reserve assets sufficient to meet the liquidity needs of their U.S. customers.
The act also has special provisions for non-financial public companies. If a public company is not primarily engaged in financial activities, its wholly-owned or controlling subsidiaries and affiliated companies are prohibited from issuing payment stablecoins.
Second, the act imposes strict requirements on the reserve assets of issuers to ensure the redemption capability of stablecoins, which is also a core provision of the act.
The bill includes numerous supporting measures: First, it strictly prohibits the re-mortgaging of reserve assets, clearly forbidding issuers from using reserve assets for pledge financing, lending, or other speculative transactions. Second, it requires monthly public disclosure of reserve reports, including the total number of outstanding stablecoins, the amount and composition of reserves, the average duration and geographical location of each type of reserve instrument, and these must be signed off by the company's CEO and CFO. Issuers with a total issuance amount exceeding $50 billion must also publicly disclose annual financial statements, which must include any related party transactions.
Third, it strengthens anti-money laundering rules. The bill requires issuers to establish an anti-money laundering and customer identification system covering the entire business process, such as appropriately retaining records of payment stablecoin transactions, monitoring and reporting suspicious transactions, and blocking, freezing, and refusing illegal transactions. This is to prevent illegal fund flows and terrorist financing risks through a combination of technical means and institutional processes.
Foreign stablecoin issuers must also comply with "reciprocal arrangements" created and implemented by the U.S. Treasury and other jurisdictions; otherwise, they are prohibited from offering or selling their overseas-issued stablecoins within the U.S. If the stablecoin regulatory systems of other jurisdictions are comparable to the regulatory system established by the U.S. "GENIUS Act," then the U.S. Treasury can create and implement "reciprocal arrangements" with those jurisdictions.
Therefore, the "GENIUS Act" aims to address the "trust" and "risk" issues of payment-type stablecoins, rather than directly stimulating people to invest in crypto assets.
Does the Stablecoin Bill Favor the Operational Principles of Crypto?
The question is: what do unspecified individuals or institutions do after obtaining stablecoins?
Stablecoins are closely tied to the underlying characteristics of blockchain infrastructure—stablecoins are anchored to fiat currencies or government bonds, relying on blockchain smart contracts to achieve a 1:1 asset mapping, becoming a value bridge connecting traditional finance and Web 3.0.
Domestic third-party payment systems (WeChat Pay with over 1.1 billion MAU, Alipay with 900 million MAU) essentially operate as a "quasi-stablecoin" mechanism anchored to the RMB, relying on legal reserves to ensure currency stability, with domestic fees as low as a fraction of a percent (e.g., WeChat online payment charges 0.6%), far better than overseas platforms that charge several percent (e.g., PayPal).
Internet companies related to cross-border payments (which involve cross-border goods/services transactions) are more actively laying out in the stablecoin field, such as JD.com and Ant Financial.
Advantages: 1) User Scenarios: Companies like Amazon have hundreds of millions of users and mature payment scenarios (like cross-border e-commerce), allowing for rapid promotion of stablecoin applications; 2) Technical Capability: Internet companies possess technical R&D capabilities; 3) Ecological Synergy: The B-end (supply chain) + C-end (retail payment) closed loop can strengthen the network effect of stablecoins.
The "GENIUS Act" (effective July 19, 2025) clearly limits the regulatory targets to "payment-type stablecoins," defined as digital assets used for payments, transfers, or settlements, requiring 1:1 fiat support and meeting bank-level compliance (such as OCC registration).
The bill does not directly mention "investment-type stablecoins," but by prohibiting issuers from providing interest and re-mortgaging (Article 2 on reserve asset requirements), it indirectly restricts the investment functions of yield-bearing stablecoins (like DAI).
The bill requires that reserve assets be used solely for redemption and not for pledging, lending, or speculative trading (Article 2, Section 1), which means that the stablecoins issued by issuers (like USDC) are designed to support payment purposes only. In July 2025, Circle's CEO explicitly stated that USDC will focus on cross-border payments, with daily trading volume increasing to $1.2 billion.
Those with obvious investment characteristics (such as algorithmic stablecoins, yield-bearing stablecoins, or stablecoins whose value growth relies on the issuer's active investment efforts) are likely not within the direct regulatory scope of the "GENIUS Act," but will be subject to existing securities laws (regulated by the SEC) or other stricter financial product regulations.
Thus, there lies a regulatory "gray area": investment-type stablecoins are neither formally regulated nor explicitly prohibited, equating to "neither encouraged nor suppressed," yet they continue to exist in a legal gray zone.
The bill prohibits issuers from providing interest → suppressing the financial attributes at the issuance end.
But it does not prohibit users from using stablecoins for DeFi pledging or RWA investments → retaining the financial attributes at the user end.
The answer lies in another bill
Stablecoins began to be approved for issuance under a "payment narrative," but they may subsequently be used in a wide range of investment scenarios, including secondary market investments, collateral pledging, and institutional accumulation.
This is the underlying logic of the stablecoin bill favoring the so-called crypto world.
This is precisely one of the biggest risks in the current crypto market:
Ø Under a structure of "payment as a pretext, investment as reality," regulators want to manage payments, but the market sidesteps to use it for speculation;
Ø Due to issuer compliance and investor freedom, the regulatory chain is not closed, ultimately spilling risks into traditional finance;
Ø This could potentially replay the systemic risks of 2008 characterized by "AAA packaging widely circulated + liquidity mismatch + lack of regulatory oversight on usage";
The "Clarity Act" clarifies the respective regulatory authorities of the two major regulatory bodies in the U.S.—the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)—in the digital asset market. According to this act, the SEC is primarily responsible for the trading regulation of stablecoins and anti-fraud regulation of stablecoins and digital commodities, while the CFTC is responsible for the registration and trading regulation of the digital asset market.
The "Clarity Act" defines digital assets as "valuable digital representations (digital representation) recorded on a distributed ledger through encryption"; it also explicitly states that securities, securities derivatives, stablecoins, bank deposits, agricultural products, and other commodities, commodity derivatives, artworks, asset pools, and other investment products, even in digital form, do not fall under the category of "digital commodities" and will still be regulated according to existing rules.
The "Clarity Act" stipulates that within 180 days of the act's promulgation, digital asset exchanges, brokers, and dealers must register temporarily with the CFTC until the SEC and CFTC issue formal registration processes.
Additionally, the CFTC regulates the trading of digital commodities and is also responsible for overseeing contracts involving "permitted payment stablecoins," but it does not have the authority to issue rules for permitted payment stablecoins or impose requirements on related entities or stablecoin issuers.
The "Clarity Act" further clarifies that investment contract assets that are recorded on the blockchain, can be exclusively held, and can be transferred directly peer-to-peer without intermediaries can be considered digital assets, and must comply with the provisions of the "Clarity Act."
According to the "Clarity Act," qualifying investment contract digital assets do not need to be registered with the SEC under the Securities Act, such as "the issuer operates the digital asset on a mature blockchain or intends to do so within four years," or "the amount does not exceed $75 million within a year," etc. The above qualifying investment contract assets will be registered with the CFTC.
According to the "Clarity Act," the SEC is responsible for regulating permitted payment stablecoin issuers in their trading activities on dealers, brokers, exchanges, or other trading systems. Additionally, digital commodity trading activities registered with the SEC but exempt from CFTC regulation are also subject to SEC oversight.
Furthermore, the "Clarity Act" stipulates that the rules and judicial precedents prohibiting fraud, manipulation, or insider trading as specified in the Securities Act apply to permitted payment stablecoins and digital commodity trading, with the same applicability as securities trading, and this regulatory responsibility remains with the SEC.
This means:
Ø Although these payment-type stablecoins themselves are not securities;
Ø As long as they are traded on trading platforms, brokers, etc., the SEC's trading regulatory mechanism will come into effect.
As long as their tokens are used for trading on exchanges/brokerage venues, the SEC has regulatory authority.
The SEC's regulatory authority extends beyond the issuers of payment-type stablecoins and their reserve management (the core of the "GENIUS Act") to include the trading behavior of these stablecoins in the secondary market.
Confirming the formation of a "regulatory closed loop": combining the "GENIUS Act" (regulating stablecoin issuance and reserves) and the "Clarity Act" (clarifying token nature and granting the SEC broad regulatory authority over trading behavior and market integrity), the U.S. is indeed constructing a comprehensive, clearly defined, yet mutually complementary regulatory closed loop for digital assets.
This information thoroughly shatters the simplistic understanding that "as long as it is a commodity, it is not under SEC jurisdiction." Even if it is a digital commodity, if its trading methods or market behaviors involve fraud, manipulation, or other issues, the SEC can still intervene. The SEC's authority permeates every corner of the digital asset market, ensuring fairness and integrity in market behavior.
DeFi will face a "compliance screening," with some projects potentially exiting the market due to a lack of transparency, liquidity, or compliance pathways.
If a meme coin is interpreted by the market as having a "compliance identity" simply because it meets a certain regulatory body's "registration requirements" (for example, registering with the CFTC), it could trigger speculation, which is itself a dangerous illusion. Registration does not equate to having fundamental value.
My Methodology: Seeking Valuable Projects, Especially Under New Narratives
1. Sustainability and Scalability of Revenue
Does the project generate revenue? If so, does it provide the necessary services? If it does, the next step is to check for scalability.
How does a highway make money? Every car passing through a toll booth must pay a fee. However, the number of cars that can simultaneously use the highway is not unlimited. To increase revenue, once the highway approaches congestion, operators have two options: expand it by building new lanes and/or increase fees.
If a project increases its revenue as "traffic" increases, it meets the scalability requirement. The best projects are those that can multiply their revenue because their cost structure grows much more slowly.
2. Healthy Token Economics
If a project can regularly buy back and burn their tokens, then by definition, the economic benefits represented by each remaining token in circulation will be higher. This is not much different from the stock buyback method in traditional finance, where even if profits do not grow, earnings per share (EPS) will increase as the number of shares in circulation decreases. Projects that see profits increase while the circulating supply of tokens decreases.
3. Transparency
Information running on it can be accessed and verified.
4. Compliance
There are already universal laws and regulations in the world that (have not) explicitly include the term "blockchain," or even if some have been included, they have not been uniformly enforced, which is not an excuse for non-compliance. Of course, there are exceptions, such as the completely decentralized Bitcoin blockchain.
Is it compliant with the "Clarity Act" and the "GENIUS Act"? Is it considered a security by the SEC?
5. Clear Product/Service Vision and Continuous Innovation
The most successful projects are always those that have never significantly changed their products and vision from the beginning. If a project needs to "reinvent itself," I see it as a dangerous sign, indicating that anything they previously invested in building is almost worthless. Another dangerous sign is projects that need to change their names.
If a project continues to develop its products and expands its service suite within the same scope, this is always a strong indicator of successful and healthy demand. Conversely, if a project "branches out" at some point into something different from their core vision and products, it often indicates that they perceive limited potential demand for it.
6. Substitutability and Absorbability
Core factors such as technology and competitors need to be considered.
Background Reiteration: What does the implementation of the Stablecoin Bill mean?
Essentially, the implementation of the Stablecoin Bill does not directly favor speculative crypto assets, but rather:
Ø Reinforces the positioning of "stablecoins = financial infrastructure" (the bill standardizes issuance mechanisms, reserve ratios, and issuance permissions for banks and non-banks)
Ø Facilitates traditional financial institutions to legally and compliantly access the on-chain world (such as brokerages, banks, payment platforms)
Ø Increases the willingness of regulated platforms to connect with on-chain projects, thereby expanding the actual application scenarios of some quality crypto assets
The conclusion is:
The bill favors protocol-type projects with revenue models + compliance capabilities + financial service attributes, and does not fundamentally benefit purely speculative Memecoins or Layer 1 speculative assets.
Detailed Analysis:
Ø Coinbase is a robust Web3 infrastructure platform, not a hot stock in Web3 speculation, but belongs to the "Buffett-type company" in crypto, worthy of attention in the medium to long term.
Ø Circle is the issuer of the stablecoin USDC, which directly benefits from the Stablecoin Bill.
Ø Coinbase is a leading compliant exchange in the U.S. and directly holds shares in Circle, making it an indirect beneficiary.
Ø Ethereum is one of the carriers of the "on-chain dollar system," and the stablecoin policy benefits its infrastructure role, but it may not see immediate volume increase in the short term.
Ø SOL has speculative advantages, but under the current context of clearer compliance policies, its valuation premium should gradually converge; regulatory risks have not been eliminated. The SEC has attempted to classify it as a security, creating a regulatory gray area, with high inflation and not fully deflationary.
Ø LINK is one of the few protocols with clear revenue and service support in both bull and bear cycles, making it worthy of long-term allocation.
Ø UNI (Uniswap) is a high-risk, high-reward project; if it introduces protocol fee sharing in the future and successfully counters regulation, it may see a value reassessment. It has high inflation, and the value of governance rights remains limited. The SEC has drafted intentions to sue, and the degree of decentralization has not resolved the risks. If Uniswap is classified as an "exchange" by the SEC, it may face enforcement actions.
Ø AAVE has a stable income model and robust product logic, but compliance barriers are the core issue limiting further valuation increases.
Ø Pendle is a niche but specialized interest rate derivatives market, highly speculative, limited by market size and regulatory ambiguity. It has a high degree of financial engineering complexity, making compliance extremely challenging.
Ø ONDO is one of the most direct beneficiaries of the Stablecoin Bill, serving as a high-quality bridge connecting real-world assets (RWA) with on-chain, with significant potential for growth.
Ø Pyth Network (PYTH) is another important infrastructure for on-chain oracles, with long-term potential.
Ø Aptos (APT) has the potential to gradually become the second main chain outside of Ethereum, worthy of attention.
Ø Celestia (TIA) is worth early positioning in the modular development of Web3 infrastructure.
Ø BUIDL (BlackRock Tokenized Fund) represents the trend of institutional entry, stable in the short term, benefiting from the integration of traditional finance in the long term.
Ø TRAC (OriginTrail) combines real-world applications with DeFi potential, with minimal regulatory impact, and long-term growth is expected.
Underlying Technology: High Substitutability. From a purely technical perspective of "writing asset information onto the blockchain," its underlying tokenization standards (such as ERC-20) and smart contract programming are industry-standard and open-source. Any team with blockchain development capabilities can achieve similar basic tokenization functions.
Non-technical Barriers (High). The real barrier for ONDO lies in its compliance framework, legal structure, business integration capabilities with traditional financial institutions (such as custodians, asset issuers), and experience in obtaining regulatory approvals. This is a complex system engineering involving financial law, regulatory technology, and traditional financial operational processes. Academically, this can be seen as a form of "Institutional Technology" or "Compliance as a Competitive Advantage." This "technology" is not the code itself, but the ability to translate complex legal and financial processes into executable blockchain protocols, which has a very high difficulty of non-technical replication.
Chainlink is a decentralized oracle network for blockchain, playing a key middleware role in connecting on-chain smart contracts with off-chain real-world data. It addresses the core issues of "data islands" and "trust deficits" in blockchain.
Oracles, as a service model, have a basic concept that can be replicated by other teams or protocols. There are also other oracle projects in the market (such as Band Protocol, Pyth Network, etc.).
The true barrier of Chainlink lies in its strong network effects and the unparalleled trust it has built in the industry.
From a purely technical code perspective, its substitutability is moderate. However, from the deeper dimensions of "network effects" and "trust accumulation," Chainlink's barriers are extremely high, and its "ecological technology substitutability" is very low.
Whether it is large tech companies (such as cloud service providers needing to bring off-chain data onto the blockchain) or traditional financial data service providers (such as Bloomberg needing to expand into the on-chain data market), they may wish to control or deeply participate in the data entry of the blockchain.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
