Recently, there has been an interesting phenomenon. The continuous outflow of funds from Solana for over a month seems to have little impact, and its ecosystem is still operating steadily. In contrast, BSC has been sluggish after three days of inactivity, and the gap is indeed obvious.

Looking deeper, the problem may lie in the source of liquidity. BSC's liquidity heavily depends on support from a few leading projects. Once these "big sponsors" adjust their strategies, the entire market can experience sharp fluctuations. More importantly, BSC's official team often needs to intervene directly to stabilize the market, indicating a lack of self-sustaining capacity within the ecosystem.

Solana, on the other hand, is different. Although its liquidity fluctuates, its ecosystem participants are more diverse. Because Solana imposes relatively fewer restrictions on developers and projects, teams can experiment and innovate more freely. This open attitude allows more new projects to grow, and in the long run, the ecosystem's resilience is stronger.

BSC has always taken a different path. On the surface, it promotes a united ecosystem, but in reality, it only seeks to control predictable and manageable projects. This exclusivity makes it difficult for BSC to develop spontaneous and diverse ecosystem vitality like Solana. The result is that the ecosystem relies heavily on official support, and once that support stops, growth momentum can easily dry up. This may be the fundamental reason for the long-term performance differences between the two chains.