The Opinion incident reminds me of some of my past project experiences, and I want to say to myself: You deserve it! Over the years, I have invested in a bunch of projects myself, some of which never went live, some of which dragged on and disappeared, some of which went all the way to zero after going live, and some of which, to put it bluntly, were difficult to find after the project team received the money. After losing so many times, I increasingly feel that there are many things that cannot be blamed on others. We have lowered the threshold for this industry too low ourselves. When a bull market comes, whether a project is worth investing in or not often only depends on a few things: which track is popular, who has invested, who stands on the platform, which ecological support, whether the exchange will be listed, and whether there are KOLs shouting. As for the most basic things, such as whether the product has real demand, why users want to stay, where income comes from, and whether the team has the ability to make things happen, few people take them seriously. I have also made this mistake myself. When you see a race track, your first reaction is to quickly find the leader, the odds, and the next one that can rise, rather than asking first: Is this project worth it or not? The problem lies here. When the standards of the entire market are low, and a project has not even proven itself, and can easily get money, traffic, users, KOLs, and ecological resources, the project team will naturally become bolder. Serious product development and storytelling skills yield similar rewards, and in many cases, the latter earns even more. Over time, those who truly want to do things and those who only want to quickly monetize will receive the same reward. Of course, there will be more and more bad coins. When an industry lacks mature regulation and there is not enough self-restraint within the industry, and investors are willing to continuously give money at extremely low thresholds, those who truly want to cheat money, run away, and engage in RUG will naturally find that the criminal and moral costs here are very low. So why did many projects dare to act recklessly later on? To some extent, it is also the market that has accustomed them time and time again. Moreover, this issue is not limited to opinions, nor is it limited to a specific chain. Crypto particularly likes to talk about ecological support. What's on fire in someone else's house? I need to help someone here right away. The prediction market has become popular, and I also want a prediction market. The AI agent has become popular, and I am also helping the AI agent. Which track is hot, resources will immediately pile up in that direction. The starting point is not wrong. But I increasingly believe that ecology should provide soil, rather than pulling out seedlings to promote growth. A truly good project should first have people willing to use it, then real users emerge, real demand brings real income, data slowly grows, capital and ecological resources are finally amplified. Many projects are now completely reversed. First, there are hot topics, then financing, ecological resources, finding KOLs, incentivizing, data brushing, creating prosperity, and finally launching coins online. If the price of the coin rises, everyone feels that the model is working. If the coin price drops, users disperse, data returns to zero, project parties slowly disappear, and finally the market looks for the next hot spot. So the entire industry formed a particularly familiar assembly line: Hotspots appear → Low threshold investment → Resource promotion → Data brushing → Coin issuance → Listing → Cash out/RUG → User buying → Find the next one. This is the truly terrifying spiral of death. And we want to make this industry better, not by requiring every project party to suddenly become a saint. The most effective method is actually quite simple: Raise the standards a bit and make it harder to get money. In the future, we will first raise the standards ourselves. Not investing without real products, not investing without real users, not investing solely based on stories, not investing without a clear team and business model. When the market is no longer willing to give money casually, the project team naturally needs to first make the product good, find real users, prove that someone is willing to pay for it, and then discuss financing, coin issuance, and valuation. Good teams get more resources, poor projects become increasingly difficult to raise money for, and those who simply want to cut corners find this industry increasingly difficult to do. This is the true cycle. So I don't think it's that important who is right or wrong with the Opinion this time. It's more like a mirror. Why does Crypto have chicken feathers every once in a while? Don't always blame the project team. Many times, we set the passing line for projects too low ourselves. The money is given by us, the traffic is given by us, the valuation is raised by us, and in the end, if you fall into a trap, you will blame others. In the future, if I litter casually, I will be a dog, I will be a dog, I will be a dog!