The encryption community OG has always had disagreements over zec. However, whether there is anyone in charge of Zec and whether it can make money is another matter. The core of the disagreement among punks is not about whether to rise or not, but about the path of ZEC, which has been different from BTC/Monero since its inception: BTC/Monero is closer to the path of "ownerless, default privacy, fair start"; There are controversial parts of the path taken by ZEC, such as: For the first four years, 20% Founders' Reward will be directly written into the block reward; • Optional privacy+viewing key, convenient for compliance, and also convenient for most coins on the chain to stay in transparent addresses for a long time (the blocking proportion later increased from low single digits to nearly 30%, and was not locked in the transparent pool); • Starting from corporatization VC、 The non-profit board of directors and later the ECC team left the board system and started a new business to continue the chain, not a protocol shutdown; In theory, there has been a window in the privacy pool where it cannot be cryptographically proven that 'no one stole the casting'; The old pool was later sealed off, and the new pool was restricted from flowing out with gates. The window itself was not falsified and cleared afterwards. These are issues of stance, not market conditions. Making money is another logic. The computing power of the mining pool is highly concentrated, the blocking pool erases the flow, the treasury narrative of listed companies, ETF/custody channels, and short positions are being squeezed. An asset may not necessarily conform to the native spirit of encryption, but it can also be a trading target with good liquidity, smooth narrative, and willingness for funds to relay. The two are not completely exclusive. This is also reality. The current encryption is no longer the same as before.