In the crypto world, many projects are always talking about moats—how large the user base is, how active the ecosystem is, and how strong the network effects are. It sounds impressive, but this logic falls apart when applied to finance.

The rules of the game in finance are fundamentally different. What determines how long a project can survive is never market size, but a more brutal question: Are you allowed to exist? This permission doesn't come from user votes but from the iron triangle of legal frameworks, regulatory policies, and risk control systems.

The real financial world is not an open arena. It is a highly restricted space where entry is not determined by strength but by compliance. No matter how advanced the technology or how active the community, as long as you cross the regulatory line, you can be kicked out. That’s why some projects, no matter how they try, cannot escape the predicament.

Some projects have understood this from the start—rather than building castles outside the gate, it’s better to build good houses inside. This choice may not seem very glamorous at first glance, but in the long run, it’s the ones that last the longest. Every step of their development actively accepts the scrutiny of real-world constraints. What features can be launched, which application scenarios to avoid, and which boundaries cannot be crossed—these are not questions for later but must be thought through now.

Because of this restraint, some design decisions may seem less exciting. They don’t prioritize the hottest DeFi gameplay, nor do they cater to speculative psychology—because those scenarios are already in the regulatory gray area, and including them only increases risk. This self-discipline may look like missing out on the windfall, but in reality, it’s the clearest and most sober choice.