In a village, there were two people selling alcohol. The first person didn’t have a license and secretly sold alcohol in the alley at night. Everyone said, “Even though he’s not compliant, he’s got an entrepreneurial spirit. That’s how markets are opened up. Innovation is rarely compliant at the start.” The second person also wanted to sell alcohol, but he first applied for a license, rented a legitimate storefront, handled fire safety, taxes, food safety, identity verification, and even proactively communicated with the village authorities. As a result, the authorities started asking him: Where does your alcohol come from? Who are your customers? Will anyone get drunk? Will it affect minors? Will it cause public safety issues? Is your profit source transparent? Does your business model pose systemic risks? In the end, people actually thought the second person was more dangerous. Sounds absurd, right? But this kind of thing has really happened in history—during Prohibition in the U.S. At that time, legitimate alcohol merchants, bars, and breweries were restricted or even shut down by law, while underground speakeasies, smuggled alcohol, and black market trading flourished on a large scale. Many ordinary people knew speakeasies were illegal, but society didn’t entirely treat them as serious crimes. Some even saw them as a way to resist rigid systems. But if a legitimate businessman wanted to openly, legally, and transparently run an alcohol business, they faced the strictest scrutiny. Because once they entered the system, they had to comply with all regulatory requirements—taxes, licenses, customer base, venue safety, business scope, and more. Lawbreakers, because they’re not at the table, don’t have to answer the questions at the table. Compliant individuals, because they voluntarily sit at the table, have to explain where every card comes from. Of course, personally, I’m very, very supportive of compliance—the more compliant, the better. Striving for compliance is the greatest protection for users.