Obviously, the media can write stories, but the court only verifies evidence. Last week, two anti-terrorism lawsuits against Binance were rejected by a US court. What does this represent? Last week, many people should have seen this lawsuit incident. When many people saw such headlines, their first reaction was: Binance has another problem! But if we only look at the outcome this time, what is more noteworthy is not the fact of being sued, but rather: the court did not support this set of accusations logic. I specifically checked that the legal threshold for Counter Terrorism Litigation (ATA) in the United States is very high: The plaintiff not only needs to prove that the platform was used by a terrorist organization, but also needs to prove that the platform knew and assisted, and even needs to prove a causal relationship with the specific attack. The court's rejection basically means that the evidence has not reached this level, so it will be rejected. In my impression, something similar happens once or twice a year on Binance: almost every once in a while, the market will dig up old narratives such as regulatory risks, historical issues, and political pressures and apply them to Binance again. The media likes this kind of news, so it will be magnified, even if they try their best to cooperate in regulating this matter and spend a lot of money on correcting or even rebuilding this section to comply with regulations, But actually, I feel that this is also part of the legalization process of the encryption industry? The path is very similar to that of the Internet: one ️⃣ Savage growth; two ️⃣ Government crackdown; three ️⃣ Huge fines; four ️⃣ Rebuilding order amidst disputes; five ️⃣ Becoming an Infrastructure Binance is currently likely in a transitional position from Phase 4 to Phase 5. I don't know what everyone thinks, Looking at it from a different perspective, this is a new industry that once grew wildly and is now undergoing a high cost of liquidation before being accepted by the mainstream world.