In the world of blockchain, "decentralization" is regarded as the guiding principle. It seems that the more decentralized something is, the more advanced and closer to the ideal it is.

But when I try to apply this logic to financial operations, I encounter a stubborn problem: complete decentralization in a financial system may not be a good thing; it could even hide hidden dangers.

I'm not opposed to decentralization, but the ultimate concern of a financial system is never "whether power is sufficiently dispersed," but rather "whether the system has the ability to be pulled back before it collapses."

Look at the real financial world. You can't find a major system that is completely decentralized. Clearing centers, fund custody, audit mechanisms, regulatory frameworks—these roles, which seem very "centralized," are essentially "braking devices." Their purpose is not to monopolize power but to ensure that when risks explode, there are people, rules, and procedures that can quickly intervene to stop losses. Cutting all of these? The system may look very pure on the surface, but when real trouble occurs, the losses are often catastrophic.

When the core logic runs fully automatically, when permissions are infinitely sliced, and when responsibilities are scattered into a "everyone is responsible, so no one is responsible" state, the system appears more elegant on the surface but actually becomes more fragile. When faced with unexpected combined risks, no structure can hit the brakes.

This understanding, in turn, explains the design philosophy of certain projects. They are not blindly pursuing the story of "absolute decentralization," but are finding a balance point between crypto ideals and financial realities—this pragmatic trade-off is actually the most scarce in the crypto circle.