From the perspective of institutional investors analyzing the blockchain ecosystem, you'll find that many popular narratives quickly become invalid. How much has the price increased, how active is the community, how loud are the slogans—these are not the decisive factors. What truly matters at the decision-making table are a few very practical questions: How high are the regulatory costs? Is the risk boundary clear? Will the system encounter problems when large funds flow in? Can operations continue normally as the business scales up?

These questions may sound unglamorous, but they directly determine whether a chain is genuinely integrated or just remains in research reports.

For this reason, institutions are rarely attracted by the "decentralization ideal" when choosing a chain. What they truly care about is whether the rules can be automatically enforced by the system, rather than relying on human judgment. Some emerging public chains have already considered this in their architecture: identity management, permission control, and compliance conditions are not afterthought patches but core components of the protocol. Transactions maintain privacy, but when auditing or regulatory intervention is needed, the system can provide verifiable, complete proof.

This design may seem cold, but it fully aligns with the risk management logic of financial institutions—focusing not on "trusting a person," but on "trusting the system itself."

This also explains why such public chains are never optimized for retail trading. They do not pursue record-breaking TPS numbers, nor do they emphasize making it easy for everyone to deploy smart contracts. Their focus is: when asset volume and legal responsibilities increase simultaneously, can the system still maintain operational consistency and controllability? For institutions, the real risk is not missing out on a price rally, but facing an uncontrollable compliance risk. Addressing this issue at the protocol layer is essentially a clear trade-off.

Looking at the bigger picture, many institutions are currently stuck in a trilemma: using centralized exchanges offers high trading efficiency but comes with significant asset custody risks; using private chains provides clear regulatory relationships but loses liquidity and cross-chain interoperability; connecting to public chains involves privacy leaks and regulatory pressures. Some projects are trying to find a balance among these three, aiming to prevent public chains from automatically equating to "high risk exposure." This path may not be the fastest, but from a long-term cost and systemic friction perspective, it could be the optimal choice.