These past few days have resembled an old historical scenario: the six states uniting to attack Qin. Each side had its own reasons and its own narrative of justice, but the result is well-known: the siege didn't change Qin's overall situation; instead, it repeatedly forced Qin to undergo more intense internal integration, ultimately leading to greater stability. Historically, emotional alliances have never directly created a new order; they only accelerated the evolution of the center. The same applies to today's industries. When a center is large and crucial enough, attacks surrounding it will inevitably occur, and these attacks will periodically erupt. However, the siege itself doesn't automatically foster a more mature alternative structure. Recently, HYPE has been seen by many as a representative of anti-Binance, with its emotional and moral aura amplified. But looking at it calmly, many question whether HYPE is truly a fully decentralized product: it's not fully open source and resembles a centralized exchange disguised as decentralized. Mistaking anti-Binance for a "new version" is itself a narrative misalignment. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, and most anti-centralization projects ultimately just lead to another centralization. Historically, this path is not uncommon. In traditional business history, the antitrust efforts of Standard Oil and Microsoft never directly created substitutes through the act of siege itself. What truly changes the historical landscape is always structural innovation, not emotional convergence. Jeff received investment from Binance Labs in his early startup. After the project failed, Yzilabs, as the investor, assumed all the risk.