The past couple of days feel like a scene from history: the Six States forming an alliance to attack Qin. Each side had its own reasons and narrative of justice, but we all know how it ended: the siege didn’t change Qin’s overall situation. Instead, it repeatedly forced Qin to achieve higher levels of internal consolidation, ultimately becoming even more stable. Historically, emotional alliances have never directly created a new order—they only accelerate the evolution of the center. The same applies to today’s industry. When a center is big enough and critical enough, attacks against it are inevitable, and they tend to erupt periodically. But the siege itself doesn’t automatically lead to a more mature alternative structure. Recently, HYPE has been seen by many as a symbol of opposition to Binance, with emotions and moral halos being significantly amplified. But looking at it calmly, many are questioning whether HYPE itself is truly a fully decentralized product: it’s not yet fully open-source and seems more like a centralized exchange wrapped in the guise of decentralization. Mistaking opposition to Binance as “the emergence of a new version” is itself a narrative misalignment. The enemy of your enemy isn’t necessarily your friend, and most anti-centralization projects ultimately just lead to another center. From historical experience, this path isn’t uncommon. In traditional business history, the antitrust cases against Standard Oil and Microsoft never directly created replacements because of the siege itself. What truly changes historical dynamics is always structural innovation, not emotional convergence. Jeff received investment from Binance Labs during his early startup days. After the project failed, Yzilabs, as the investor, took on all the risk.