Recently, I have been able to understand what Jason said. For the cryptocurrency industry, to this day, it is mostly an air project, either exchanging air for the U in your hand or due to regulatory reasons. For example, those who are willing to empower but cannot be empowered due to regulation (will be identified as securities) are quite difficult. The protocol itself has good revenue, but cannot be directly linked to tokens. Do you think they don't know that the so-called "governance" is like a moon in water. They also know, but cannot empower. This is not to mention agreements that claim to be willing to empower, but in reality do not make any money. No matter how good they are said, there is essentially no optimal solution for the cryptocurrency industry. What kind of empowerment does this offer. Nowadays, in this industry, the only ones who dare to empower and achieve empowerment are exchanges. On the contrary, I think project developers should learn from the courage of exchanges. They blame users for not accepting orders and not understanding all day long. Instead, you should empower customers. Don't just destroy and repurchase every day. Even fools know that if destruction and repurchase are effective, there won't be a bear market. The real empowerment is to directly give it to users, issue 1 billion, buy 10 million every month, and sell another 50 million, which can rise in the Year of the Dog.