#加密资产监管 Seeing Raj Gokal's words at the Breakpoint conference, the first thought that flashed through my mind was the echo of the grand feast in 2017. Back then, we were also discussing on-chain ratios, market share, and ecosystem expansion, but very few projects actually landed. Now, Solana reports that startups with over a billion in revenue are mostly built on it, which sounds very familiar—because I've seen this cycle too many times: first, infrastructure competition heats up, then the narrative of ecosystem prosperity, and finally a return to regulatory realities.

However, this time is indeed somewhat different. Raj mentioned a "clear regulatory environment" and "support from major countries," which in 2017 was completely unimaginable. Back then, we watched nervously as central banks' attitudes varied, but now the US has a relatively clear policy direction, and some countries are starting to issue assets on-chain. This shift in environment fundamentally changes the game rules.

From a historical perspective, the outcome at the infrastructure layer often depends on the maturity of the ecosystem. Solana shifted its original target from a certain percentage of global finance to 25%, then fought for an additional 10% share. I understand this logic, but we must also be cautious. Every time we see such ambitious goals, it's often when risks are most easily overlooked. The 1700 teams participating in the hackathon is indeed spectacular, but the quality gap can be brutal—just like Ethereum back then, where beneath the prosperity lay a large number of zombie projects.

What truly warrants reflection is whether the increased regulatory friendliness has provided us with a more solid foundation or caused us to lose vigilance amid prosperity. History tells us that the latter's cost is often greater.