Solana co-founder toly responds to accusations of 'killing http://Flash.Trade': The foundation only handles promotion, product success depends on itself. After http://Flash.Trade shut down, its founder accused the Solana Foundation of 'only supporting Phoenix while ignoring other teams.' Solana co-founder toly fired back: 'The foundation cannot guarantee product success; it only handles promotion during the initial launch phase. If competing products are released, the foundation can also help. Ultimately, whether attention can be converted into users depends entirely on the product itself—whether it’s innovative, excellent, and has compelling storytelling. When Phoenix launched, everyone heard about it, but the conversion rate was up to the Phoenix team.' This statement essentially shifts the blame: the foundation won’t take responsibility for 'killing' http://Flash.Trade; its failure was due to the product itself. However, the founder of http://Flash.Trade’s accusations reveal internal conflicts within the ecosystem—does the foundation engage in 'selective support'? In a bear market, do projects that lose support have no choice but to fend for themselves? At its core, this debate is about resource allocation: should blockchain foundations treat all projects equally, or bet on top-tier projects?