#ZK技术与扩展方案 Seeing this AMA with Lighter, there are a few points worth our serious consideration.

Vlad mentioned ZK technology and the cleanup of witch accounts. On the surface, these are technical issues, but they reflect the core of risk management—how to protect genuine participants in an open ecosystem. Users who are misjudged can appeal, and the number of appeals is surprisingly low. What does this indicate? Either the identification algorithms are quite accurate, or most users have pre-existing expectations about the outcomes.

I want to emphasize that the sustainability of any incentive mechanism depends on the quality, not the quantity, of participants. Starting with stablecoins for general account margin and gradually expanding to ETH and BTC is a solid design approach—risk is introduced in phases. But this also means we need to understand how each phase’s liquidation mechanism and ADL operate; we can't just look at returns and ignore risk models.

Regarding tokenomics, Vlad emphasized that value accumulates in the token rather than equity, and all investors operate based on this principle. The commitment is clear, but the key to implementation lies in how revenue is truly embedded into ecosystem growth. The 50% allocation to the community is significant, but when the specific distribution plan is announced, participants need to evaluate what they can gain based on their involvement.

What I find most important is his mention of integration with traditional finance—tokenized stocks, on-chain fixed income—all of which require regulatory clarity. Short-term volatility and uncertainty are common, but those with a long-term mindset know that compliant growth tends to be more sustainable than aggressive rapid expansion.

Instead of chasing every new feature, ask yourself: can my position and strategy withstand the platform’s iterative process? This is far more important than just counting down to the TGE.