Everyone’s arguing on ct again - in terms of who’s right or wrong, who should take the blame and reimburse user loss. Before we draw any partial-fact based conclusions, let’s take a step back: what actually matters is learning how to interpret these voices in the first place. In crypto, every exchange, chain, protocol, or individual (angel investor, kol) has their own stance. the bigger they are, the deeper their alliances and interests run - what they post, retweet, or emphasize will never be completely neutral. So before you jump to agree or take sides, ask yourself: - what’s this person’s motivation for posting this? - whose interest are they protecting? - what do they want you to believe? From day one, Sprout wasn’t built to speak for any exchange, chain or project. it was built to protect users’ long-term, stable, and sustainable returns. of course, we collaborate with many chains and partners. we talk to them for better deals and due diligence every week. But our strategy team operates with full independence - if a partner’s mechanism looks risky, they’ll veto it, no matter how much I like the deal. historical data also never lies. Every discussion we join is meant to help partners refine their mechanisms and prevent potential long-tail risks before they happen. that’s what we believe a responsible builder should do. Staying independent, understanding incentives, and recognizing bias - that’s the foundation of real information literacy in this space. Thanks for reading till the end - I am about to faint now after a 15-hour flight. 🌱

After the market blizzard, I see everyone arguing on Twitter - who is right, who should apologize, and who will compensate the users. But what I want to talk about is not "who should be responsible," but rather: as market participants, how should we discern these voices themselves. In the crypto industry, every exchange, public chain, project party, and even individuals have their own positions. The larger the entity, the more complex the interest groups behind it - what they say, the posts they share, and their expressions cannot be completely neutral. So, when you see any "opinions," "exposés," or "analyses," instead of rushing to take sides, it’s better to first ask yourself: - What is this person's motivation for posting this tweet? - Whose interests are they protecting? - What do they want you to believe? From day one, Sprout has not been about speaking for any public chain or project party, but rather about helping users strive for long-term, stable, and sustainable returns. We have indeed maintained close cooperation with various public chains, project parties, funds, and so on. But our strategy team remains independent: even if I personally have high hopes for a certain collaboration, as long as the risk assessment is not up to par, we still won’t launch it. Historical data never lies. All discussions we participate in are also aimed at helping project parties improve their mechanisms and reduce potential long-tail risks in the future. This blizzard came fiercely but passed quickly. However, more importantly, we are thinking and acting every day - how to prevent the next black swan event from occurring through structural and system design. This is what we can do for users, and it is also what this industry truly needs someone to do. Maintaining independent thinking, seeing through positions, and understanding the structure of interests is the fundamental ability to discern information. Thank you for your patience in reading this far; after a 15-hour flight, I am now ready to pass out. 🌱

True power is not just economic, but also ideological.