I believe CZ and his team think they are fundamentally different from Xibei. But as a user, I feel that they have something in common.

China has a 5,000-year history, and all current events can be traced back to similar historical answers. When a company or individual becomes a leader in an industry, the public automatically holds them to high standards and forces them to passively assume social responsibility, including guiding correct values ​​and spreading positive energy. This is not something Binance or the CZ team can choose.

If you position yourself as a company focused solely on making money, you'll end up in a terrible situation. It's like how top celebrities who don't donate money or companies like Tencent and Huawei that don't engage in charity face public backlash.

Binance is already a leader in the field, and the public expects it to be a reliable platform; anything from Binance is guaranteed to be high-quality. Therefore, this platform should focus on valuable initiatives, helping technical teams create valuable tokens and guiding blockchain towards technological applications and practical implementation.

The obvious situation is that while users all think CZ is working on Starlink in the blockchain industry, he might actually be working on Meituan. His ambitions aren't in the stars.

To give a simple example, I always thought he had a professional blockchain technology team and investment team dedicated to discovering, investing in, and supporting promising new-generation blockchain companies. His goal was to make blockchain technology a reality, applicable, developing, and expanding, until it became a part of our lives and businesses, until he became a godfather figure in the industry.

But when I turned around, I found that he was either arguing with competitors or explaining that he hadn't been exploiting investors. Or he was praising meaningless coins like "Binance Life" or launching coins like "I'm Here!"

This is absolutely shocking. Especially the unlimited listing of "dog coins" (coins with low intrinsic value). With so many "dog coins," users' attention and funds will naturally be diverted, and they won't focus on valuable coins. This is unfair to teams with real value, making it difficult for them to obtain sufficient support, impacting project progress and value realization. If this continues, more and more people will be unwilling to do valuable work, and the entire industry will fall into a "bad money drives out good" dilemma. Fewer and fewer teams will be willing to focus on technology and applications, and the market will be flooded with more coins without real value.

This is indirect wrongdoing.

CZ (Center for Tencent) must have noticed that when he recommends value coins, nobody pays attention, but when he recommends low-quality coins, a lot of people buy them. Supporting and tolerating low-quality coins is indirectly doing evil; it's driving out good coins. This will backfire someday, just like with Xibei (a cryptocurrency company).

Suddenly one day, the flowers and applause disappeared. All normal behavior was magnified infinitely: silence was interpreted as guilt, speaking was interpreted as sophistry, travel was interpreted as escapism, and keeping a low profile was interpreted as hiding. A photo, a sentence, an action—everything was negative. Just like what Xiaomi is facing now.

Therefore, as the person in charge of this platform, you should not be immersed in the flowers and applause. When you have enough money, you should start to think about value and responsibility.

Just like the founder of Unitree Robotics, he made enough money in quantitative trading and then started working in technology.