There is a famous 360 paradox online: If you cannot uninstall 360 completely, it means you really need its protection; if you have the ability to uninstall 360 completely, it means you are fully capable of protecting your own computer.

Recently, I saw news about a certain celebrity investing in virtual currency and losing everything, with comments like "It should have been regulated long ago." This reminded me of that episode "Nosedive" from "Black Mirror"—when everyone is obsessed with social ratings, the system becomes a shield instead. The domestic attitude towards virtual currency is, to some extent, like that absurd rating system: you think it restricts you, but in fact, it is filtering out those destined to become "leeks".

This reminded me of the warning sign by the river in my hometown when I was a child—clearly stating "No Swimming," but there are always people who think "I won't drown." Later, I understood that the real meaning of that sign was: "If you don't even have the ability to avoid the sign, you certainly don't have the ability to resist the undercurrents."

There is an interesting phenomenon: those who truly make money in the cryptocurrency space often have long learned to coexist with the rules. Just like Andy in "The Shawshank Redemption" using a geological hammer to dig a tunnel, what matters is not how thick the wall is, but knowing where to swing the hammer. In contrast, those who complain on social media that "the country won't let me get rich" might not even be able to tell the difference between a white paper and a pyramid scheme.

Recently, I reread "Fanatics," which says that mass movements are best at creating a "false sense of participation." Cryptocurrency KOLs shouting about "financial freedom" resemble giving lottery tickets as rewards to kindergarten children. Sometimes, bans become a mirror—those who can see the essence of the rules have long been quietly laying out their plans, while those who curse at the mirror might not even be able to distinguish whether the mirror is flat or concave. Ultimately, all debates about "protection" and "freedom" are fundamentally differences in cognitive dimensions. Just like you cannot explain a Möbius strip to a two-dimensional being, some game rules are incomprehensible in themselves, which is an answer. $BNB