ElodyGreen

Looking at the future of blockchain from Alpha airdrops: it's time to upgrade your strategy.
Today's two Alpha airdrop data made me realize a profound truth: those who can truly navigate on-chain have long stopped 'brushing points.'

The two airdrops you see, one has a threshold of 70 points, with a total of 200,000 pieces; the other only has 7,500 pieces, which were gone in an instant. Based on this data, the number of truly active and efficiently executing users in the Alpha ecosystem is probably only 100,000 to 150,000, far below what many prediction platforms refer to as 'brushing users.' What does this imply?
A lot of 'brushing' data actually has no real significance. Many people are still desperately trying to accumulate points and interaction counts, but can this 'brushing' method really bring the maximum on-chain benefits?

Sometimes I deliberately slow down when observing a project, just to watch how it processes information instead of rushing to evaluate its functional performance. Because I have always believed that what best reveals a team's way of thinking in infrastructure is not the parameters, not the speed, but how they treat the data itself.

Apro is the kind of project that reveals its internal order the more you look at it. The way it handles data carries a kind of restrained patience, making one feel that it is not constructing a product, but rather building a linguistic structure that allows on-chain systems to 'understand the world.'

I often ask myself a question when analyzing chains:
"What would happen if all chains were stripped of their packaging and we looked only at the real pressures they can withstand?"
This question seems harsh, yet it is the most important standard in the financial sector. Because transactions are not about storytelling or relying on concepts to shine, but rather about whether the system can still operate in the worst moments.

The more you use this standard to observe, the more apparent the uniqueness of Injective becomes.

It is neither the type of chain with the 'most functionalities' nor the 'loudest ecological chain'; its advantage comes from a point that is less discussed but extremely critical—

We tend to see finance as a numbers game: assets in, assets out, high returns, low returns, rising risks, falling risks.
But the more I study, the clearer I feel about one thing:

Finance is not just numbers; finance is about 'belonging.'
Where assets are, there is the heart;
Who the assets are entrusted to is who the trust is given to;
The longer assets stay in a system, the longer users' emotions take root there.

In this industry, almost all protocols discuss returns, yet very few are willing to talk about 'a sense of belonging.'

However, Falcon Finance made me realize for the first time that:

I have been frequently thinking about a question lately: Is the stability of a protocol reliant on the design itself, or on the feedback formed by users during usage? While observing Kite, this question became increasingly specific, as it happens to be in a very delicate position—its structure appears restrained, yet within the details lies an almost harsh engineering logic; its mechanism is rigorous, yet it makes users feel very 'natural'. This feeling is rare and difficult to achieve.

In order to confirm this intuition, I retraced its collateral path, as if reviewing the caution I had during my first encounter with it. I wonder if it seems reasonable because my understanding of it has deepened; or if it was inherently designed to be a structure that becomes more intuitive the more you use it. Halfway through, I realized that the answer might be the latter.

Every time the market experiences a period of rapid emotional upswing, I deliberately slow down the pace, allowing myself to return to a more fundamental way of observation. It feels like late at night when watching on-chain data, the room is so quiet that you can hear the sound of the air conditioner, and your attention is focused solely on three things: structure, risk, and liquidity. It is in this state that the outline of the Lorenzo Protocol becomes exceptionally clear. It is not like those projects that quickly come to the forefront relying on narratives, but rather like a slow yet steady undercurrent, answering questions with structure instead of drawing people in with emotion.

In the past period, I have been accustomed to focusing on the games that are gaining popularity when analyzing the blockchain gaming industry. However, slowly I have realized that this perspective, which only focuses on hot topics, easily overlooks the true foundational structure of the industry. The deeper I look, the more I can feel an underestimated fact: the true boundaries of the blockchain gaming world are not determined by the games themselves, but by the relationships and migration methods among players.

This is the starting point for my re-understanding of Yield Guild Games.

Initially, I did not pay special attention to it because, on the surface, it appeared to be a traditional game guild. It was only after the GameFi craze subsided and the market began to settle that I realized its position in the ecosystem was undergoing subtle changes. It evolved from a "platform for organizing player participation in games" to a "structure that allows player identities to continue."

I'll tell you the truth directly— the kind that hits hard: there has been no change in domestic policy direction, and activities related to virtual currency are still high-risk areas. Don't be blinded by surface phenomena.
🔴 1. The true nature of virtual currency trading: illegal is illegal
In the country, whether you are buying coins, selling coins, exchanging U, or acting as an intermediary for trading, all are within the regulatory danger zone. Don't think you can operate 'smartly'; behind all activities related to virtual currency are illegal financial activities. So,
Buying and selling virtual currency? — Illegal.

I have recently been increasingly aware of a change: previously, when analyzing projects, it was more about looking at the tech stack, performance, and partners; but at this stage, more and more projects are starting to differentiate value levels based on whether they can truly enable AI to execute. It is against this backdrop that I have begun to repeatedly observe Apro. Because it is not like traditional oracles that are only responsible for feeding data in, but rather places deeper content such as 'how information is understood, how it is verified, and how it is used for decision-making' at the core of its product.

During the process of studying it, I had a particularly obvious feeling: Apro’s design thinking is very much like that of a researcher doing model training, rather than a traditional on-chain development team. It focuses on context, semantics, structure, and traceability, which may seem abstract, but are actually the key elements that future AI Agents will rely on.

Sometimes I go back late at night to review the blockchain game materials from a few years ago. Those projects that once sparked lively discussions now mostly remain as vague records, and even community channels have cooled off. What complicates my feelings is not just the disappearance of the projects, but the time, skills, and emotions that players invested, which often cannot be smoothly transferred to the next journey. After the game ends, many people's identities seem to be forced back to zero.

It is in this repeated occurrence of 'breaks' that I see the significance of Yield Guild Games.

During this time, I have been conducting a very interesting comparative experiment: putting several high-performance public chains under the same pressure model to see how they deviate. Most chains exhibit characteristics of 'fast but inaccurate', 'fast but unstable', and 'fast but depth cannot keep up' under high pressure. They can achieve speed, but not consistency; they can reach peaks, but not boundary stability.

Until I put Injective in, the experimental results seemed to have changed logic.

Injective's performance is not 'faster', but 'more accurate'.

If the first nine articles are my understanding of Falcon Finance from the perspectives of structure, rhythm, time, and complexity, then in this article, I want to write about a question that is closer to people, closer to reality, and closer to the essence of finance:

How does Falcon Finance change users' perception of 'risk'?

In the financial world, risk is never mathematics; it is emotion.
It is not a number, but a feeling.
It is not just 'possible loss', but 'fear of loss'.

We often think that risk has only one dimension: how much assets, how high leverage, and how much volatility.

During this period, I repeatedly observed a phenomenon: an increasing number of users with completely different styles are independently using Kite as a 'relay point' in their respective strategic paths. This overlap is not driven by some external hotspot, nor is it attracted by short-term gains; rather, it seems that in a complex market, everyone needs a place to confirm their risks and reorganize their structures, and Kite just happens to possess such a quality.

What impressed me the most was a particularly volatile weekend when the mainstream assets suddenly exhibited a somewhat unstable rhythm, forcing many collateral structures to tighten, while Kite's on-chain behavior presented a remarkably calm curve. There was indeed volatility, but it felt as if that volatility was filtered out by some inherent mechanism. To confirm that this was not an illusion, I overlaid and compared liquidity paths from several different sources, and found that whether it was large amounts of capital reallocating or small amounts of capital hedging, users' actions when entering Kite appeared to be more orderly.

Some projects need to be discussed loudly to attract attention to their existence; while some projects can remain quiet and still make people look back repeatedly to confirm if their structure is still solid. Lorenzo Protocol belongs to the latter. I increasingly understand the power behind this quietness; it is not without ambition, but rather it hides ambition within the structure, incorporating potential future pressures into the design instead of leaving it to the market to experiment.

Recently, while observing on-chain assets related to BTC, I had a strong feeling: the industry has reached a stage where it cares more about 'whether it can survive the next cycle.' Short-term gains are still attractive, but what truly keeps users around is whether a system can maintain clear order under high volatility and liquidity shocks. Lorenzo's collateral system, re-staking logic, and risk-bearing methods are slowly revealing their value amid this change in industry psychology; it does not attempt to provoke emotions but rather lets the structure itself speak.

Recently, a major news broke in the US stock market: the stock price of Circle, the world's second-largest stablecoin issuer, plummeted from $299 to $76, a drop of over 75%. This sharp decline trapped a large number of investors. Many people asked me: Can we buy at the bottom? To provide a clear analysis for everyone, I spent two days conducting some research and today I want to talk about the potential risks behind this opportunity.
💡 Stablecoin 'Gray Dollar': The Competition Between USDT and USDC
Before diving into the analysis of Circle, let's first discuss the recently popular USDT stablecoin. USDT, or the electronic token of the US dollar, has become a 'gray dollar' globally, especially in countries with high inflation and capital controls, and it is very popular among certain groups of people.

Recently, while reviewing some logs of the automation execution system, I noticed a very realistic yet easily overlooked fact: many errors are not due to incorrect system judgments, but rather because the system 'judged too early'.
That is, the system has already begun to act in situations where the information does not yet meet the judgment conditions.
This is especially evident in AI-driven strategies.
The model will infer conclusions within half a semantic chain
Risk control will raise alarms in incomplete contexts
The clearing system will trigger thresholds when key conditions are missing
The governance logic may misjudge consensus when intentions are not formed

Recently, some people have been saying that Alpha's 'cash grab' is coming to an end. Today, I want to speak the truth— in the short term, Alpha simply cannot fail! The new users and massive traffic it brings to Binance are clear for everyone to see. Whether it's project parties, institutions, KOLs, or even many investors, including numerous retail investors, almost all have made money from this. It's truly a win-win situation, so why say it's ending?
💰 Current situation: profits are thinning, a result of market rules
Now the profits are decreasing, making it easy to be exploited? This is really not a big deal. In any market, if everyone could easily get rich, how do you think money is made? There will definitely be profits, and there will also be losses. The core purpose of Binance launching Alpha is not to let a bunch of people who can only grind points and make short-term profits to cash in, but to filter out truly insightful quality users. The previous wave of account bans is a prime example.

Many times, I determine whether a blockchain game's ecosystem is still healthy not by looking at TVL, trading volume, or token prices, but by observing players' actions during a downturn. Do they withdraw immediately, or do they stay and continue to participate? Do they rely on the community, or does that dependency fade as the game's popularity wanes? Are they willing to transfer their accumulated experience to another world after a project declines? These signs can intuitively tell me what exactly captures players' attention in an ecosystem.

The uniqueness of Yield Guild Games lies in its ability to not be abandoned during a downturn.

In the past few months, I have been observing an industry trend: the more competitive the track, the easier it is to be hijacked by 'surface metrics'. Everyone is showcasing TPS, showcasing TVL, showcasing the number of ecosystems, showcasing cross-chain channels, like an endless competition. But what's really strange is that the more these numbers are hyped, the less they reflect real value.

Injective is a particularly striking chain in the industry trend of 'more and more data performances'.

It doesn't seek to grab attention, nor does it participate in the digital arms race, yet it has achieved a rare 'trust increment' in the real usage curve. This increment is not achieved through events, subsidies, or promotions, but through a very simple yet extremely difficult capability: maintaining consistent behavior over a long period.

Time is never equal in the world of cryptocurrency.

Some people lose a week's profit in one minute
Some people decide on a meaningless action in ten seconds
Some people lose patience in the noise of the market
Some people lose their sanity in the fluctuations of the profit curve

In such a system, we often mistakenly believe that finance is made up of numbers, but in fact, it is made up of 'time'.

Market volatility is the speed of time.
User emotions are the weight of time.
Asset growth is the accumulation of time.
System stability is the patience of time.

But this industry is too impatient.