When the price hits a new high, I didn't cheer along with the crowd; instead, I frowned while scrutinizing on-chain data. Over the past three months, Falcon Protocol's trading volume surged by 40%, which looks impressive. The problem is, the truly new addresses only grew by less than 12%. This is very much like a party—it's still the same group of people clinking glasses repeatedly, with hardly any new guests coming in. The engine is revving wildly, but the car isn't moving forward much.

To understand Falcon's true nature, you can't just watch the price fluctuations. You need to examine its on-chain footprint, development pace, and even those seemingly boring governance proposals, which often hide clues.

**Honestly, product iterations are indeed fierce**
Falcon doesn't hold back on feature upgrades. From its initial simple lending to now evolving into an ecosystem platform that combines derivatives and re-staking, every step has been well-paced. Especially with the new "Phoenix" leverage module, allowing users to re-mortgage interest-bearing assets, boosting capital turnover efficiency with innovative tricks. This is truly high-level design, and it's also why the market is willing to assign a high valuation.

**But there's a glaring detail behind the prosperity**
I'm used to paying attention to those inconspicuous data points. I checked recent code commit records and found a clue: in the past two months, patches labeled "urgent fix" or "rollback" have increased significantly.

What does this signal? Is the team rushing so fast that they keep bumping into issues? Or is the skyrocketing business volume testing the underlying architecture? It feels familiar—I've encountered the same problem in another project before, and this time I need to be more cautious.