This HTX controversy has brought up a question that's more worth discussing than just 'who's right and who's wrong': Who should compliance really protect? On May 26, the UK imposed sanctions on entities related to HTX, followed by the EU further including HTX in its trading ban. Regulatory pressure is very real, and there's no need to avoid this fact. But the debate quickly escalated: Some users reported that after making normal cross-platform transfers, they faced risk controls or even fund freezes on other exchanges. The term '7.5U poisoning' also spread rapidly. I think the claim that HTX deliberately poisoned transactions is clearly unfounded. @justinsuntron Brother Sun is unlikely to do something so self-destructive. As a successful entrepreneur and the creator of Sunism, Brother Sun wouldn’t be that foolish. HTX has publicly denied these accusations and is actively collecting cases from affected users to facilitate communication. What’s more noteworthy is that recently, some affected Kraken users have successfully had their funds unfrozen. This at least shows that the situation isn’t as simple as 'touching an HTX address = problematic funds.' One thing I appreciate about HTX this time is that they didn’t just stop at issuing statements to defend themselves. Instead, they continued responding to and following up on user issues despite regulatory pressure. Of course, the matter isn’t fully resolved yet. Ultimately, it will depend on on-chain evidence and subsequent regulatory outcomes. Compliance is undoubtedly important, but truly mature compliance shouldn’t make ordinary users pay the price for an uncontrollable on-chain transfer. Before protecting the industry, protect normal users first.