Recently, there was news of a donation in the crypto space—a certain exchange and a certain public chain jointly announced a donation of 10 million. On the surface, it seems like a charitable act, but those in the know understand that there is a sophisticated crisis management logic behind it.

**When donations become "trap sales"**

Interestingly, this donation was not funded by a single entity, but rather half from two related projects. This operation is quite thought-provoking—why not let one party donate the full amount? The answer may lie in the calculation of public opinion risks.

Imagine this: what would happen if only the exchange made donations while the public chain remained inactive? Voices on social media would probably emerge immediately:
- "Is the public chain short on funds?"
- "Why is the treatment of the two projects so different?"
- "Hiding even when doing charity, what about the vision?"

This "joint donation" model is essentially a hedging strategy. It's like when a company holds a press conference to launch multiple product lines at the same time, avoiding the risk of one line facing scrutiny alone. It's hard to say whether this is clever or cautious, but it certainly reduces the potential attack surface for public opinion significantly.

**What did 10 million buy?**

From a cost-benefit perspective, this expenditure may come with multiple benefits:

First is **brand insurance**. The public image of the encryption industry has been in a state of fluctuation, and maintaining exposure through public welfare activities regularly is a relatively prudent reputation management strategy.

Secondly, there is the **public opinion buffer**. When faced with negative news at some point in the future, this donation record will become the PR department's "ammunition depot" — the narrative template of "We have always fulfilled our social responsibilities" will have support.

Finally, there is the **regulatory traffic light**. Amid increasing compliance pressures, actively demonstrating a sense of social responsibility is, to some extent, a "proof of attitude" submitted to regulatory authorities.

**Conclusion**

The most intriguing aspect of this matter is that, with the same amount of 10 million, some see charity, some see calculation, and others see the survival rules of the industry. Perhaps this is the complexity of the encryption world—every action may simultaneously embody idealism and pragmatism, depending on which perspective you choose to interpret it from.