In terms of review, there is a statement similar to the following: Don't be evil - Do not do evil, convey a positive behavioral constraint, emphasize not to do harmful or unethical things Can't be evil - Ensure from a mechanism that there is no opportunity or ability to do evil If a blockchain or platform itself cannot be evil or the cost of evil is very high, then it will not do so. Communities and regulatory enforcement also understand, such as public chains with widely decentralized consensus like Bitcoin and Ethereum. But if Evil's cost is low, such as centralized platforms like eXch, then it will inevitably be required to comply with at least AML Travel Rules, but if Travel Rules are explicitly rejected, it will definitely cause a lot of controversy. The experience of Tornado Cash in OFAC in the United States over the past few years is a microcosm. The reason why many people in the community support it is also because they know that Tornado Cash can be verified at the contract code level, and it is unrealistic to want to do review or intervention, but regulatory enforcement may not necessarily understand. That's also why Uniswap can't do much at the contract level, but the front-end (the entrance to provide services to users) has implemented a Travel Rule mechanism. Proper balanced design is important, maintaining an open mind. In this industry, nothing is absolutely impossible to happen.