Power structures have always been a topic that @DoveyWanCN and I particularly enjoy discussing. Many downstream ecosystem forms, competitive methods, and even values are not essentially "choices," but rather the natural result of the upper-level power structure. Participating in both BBW and Breakpoint allowed me to witness the differences between the two ecosystems firsthand, further amplifying this understanding. The difference between BN and Solana isn't about which chain is better, but rather the different institutional choices regarding power and distribution mechanisms. BN, relying on its extremely high liquidity and user scale, naturally forms a highly centralized structure. This concentration of resources and high decision-making efficiency makes it easy to understand the "daring to be second to none" philosophy of the leading figure in the industry. Whether it's BNB Chain in the previous cycle, Wallet in this cycle, or Aster, as long as the core will is clear, resources can be quickly mobilized, and projects can scale up in a very short time. However, precisely because the central authority is so powerful, a more certain path to ROI naturally emerges for project teams: compared to focusing on product development and market share, whoever is closer to the power center, whoever can more easily obtain distribution and liquidity, controls irreplaceable scarce resources. A single sentence from a top influencer or CZ (Center for Global Investors) not only attracts attention but also reflects expectations about liquidity and outcomes. Therefore, it's not hard to understand why the market constantly speculates about favored sons, adopted sons, and grandsons. When the focus of competition shifts from "market and product" to "relationships and expectations," the vitality of the ecosystem inevitably becomes subject to the will of the central node. From this perspective, I can actually understand BN's horse racing mechanism: if I have a large amount of resources, then running first, validating first, and then providing concentrated support to the winners is the most efficient and certain strategy. Solana took a different path, or rather, it had to take a different path after FTX collapsed. It lost a liquidity center that could directly drive traffic, and its foundation can only play a role of legitimacy and advocacy. If we compare Solana to Binance, Jupiter is Spot+perp, http:/Pump.fun is Alpha, and various prop AMMs are internal MMs. Solana is merely a unified underlying clearing chain; the real distribution and liquidity capabilities belong to Jupiter and Pump. This explains why generic chains are increasingly losing their premium. However, in this ecosystem, power is transferable, and competition is open, forcing the team to continuously focus on product development and execution. This structure leads to a higher density of innovation. I believe the Solana Foundation is on an increasingly self-consistent path, systematically bringing TradFi assets and their distribution capabilities onto the chain, in addition to providing legitimacy. First, introduce assets and users, then let the ecosystem absorb and digest them; only in this way can a positive cycle be formed between the Foundation and the ecosystem. Concentrating resources for efficiency; decentralizing power for vitality. The difference between the two ecosystems is not a clash of paths, but a result of institutional choices. Historically, there has never been a naturally more "correct" system; there are only paths that match one's own endowments.