I completely understand this. But I did not ask Grok to screen the content of 'accountability for exchanges', but purely looked at the discussion traffic of the' entire 1011 incident 'itself. If we use a more intuitive analogy: The impact caused by 1011 in the cryptocurrency circle can be roughly compared to the 311 nuclear energy leak in Japan. Such a level of event should naturally attract high attention from the entire industry, multinational media, and major KOLs. However, an extremely strange phenomenon emerged as a result: If the news traffic of the 311 nuclear disaster today is completely overshadowed by the scandal of a non frontline artist stealing food in Japan, do you think it's reasonable? This is not because the market really doesn't care, but because many content that should have been openly discussed has been censored in the media. Let's talk about the difficulty of accountability itself. Is a nuclear disaster easy? The reason why it can trigger large-scale discussions is because there are official surveys, inquiries from representatives of public opinion, cross departmental accountability mechanisms, and joint pressure from the public and the government, which provide room for the growth of public opinion. The article on 812. eth already had this energy, but all of it was deleted overnight. Anyone with normal intelligence can see that something is amiss. The 1011 incident, the media in the circle dare not report it, KOLs dare not speak up, and community discussions are diluted by pressure, until only sporadic voices can be seen in the end. Two months have passed, and instead, an illusion has been created that 'this matter doesn't seem that important'. BTC/ETH/SOL has fallen by 20% -40%, with most knockoffs plummeting by over 50%. Can this level of market impact be considered a 'small matter'?