The Solv big holder rights protection incident was like a farce, and it has finally come to an end.

Through the hustle and bustle of various voices, we can see many things: some shine brightly, some bare their fangs, while others show their ugly side.

What are the facts, what are viewpoints, what is objective, and what is subjective? We can now look back and review.

1. First, let's look at the complete timeline.

November 28, 2024: The leading Bitcoin staking protocol Solv Protocol announces TGE (Token Generation Event); @SolvProtocol

December 30, 2024: Binance announces the listing of Solv tokens; @binancezh

January 3, 2025: Solv big holder Mudita posts information on Twitter to protect rights, investing 1800 BTC, ultimately yielding less than expected; @Clarissexx0805

January 4, 2025: BTC ecosystem data availability project Nubit co-founder Hans published content pointing out that BTC in Solv was not actually locked and there was false TVL; @trackoor

January 4, 2025: Solv co-founder Meng Yan responds to a force in the industry that is maliciously slandering and smearing Solv; @myanTokenGeek

January 4, 2025: Solv CEO Ryan posts a rebuttal and clarification, responding point by point to Nubit co-founder Hans's claims; Hans's evidence is unconvincing; @RyanChow_DeFi

January 5, 2025: Solv's official Twitter account is hacked.

January 6, 2025: Binance's third phase Megadrop project—Solv Protocol opens.

January 6, 2025: Solv rights defender Mudita announces the issuance of coins.

2. The process of changing public opinion.

The above timeline is an objective fact; now let's look at the perspectives of all parties and the changes in public opinion.

(1) The First Stage: Empathy.

When I first saw the rights protection information, my first reaction was that the project party and the big holders did not reach an agreement on profit distribution before the listing, causing the big holders to be cut while retail investors benefited.

This is also why I first posted a tweet, giving my initial thoughts: many issues are not conflicts between the bourgeois and the proletariat but rather between the productive class and the distribution class.

In other words, it is not a conflict between the rich and the poor, but rather a conflict between those who contribute value and those who ultimately distribute value.

There is no such thing as right or wrong, so I have not taken sides.

At this time, the direction of public opinion is mainly 'empathy'; most people see the rights protection information and first react that the rights defenders are the vulnerable group, and the project party carries original sin, so they sympathize with the rights defenders and criticize the project party.

The comments under Mudita's tweet are filled with sympathetic remarks, and some influential figures directly condemn Solv.

However, experienced industry veterans, having seen enough, can clearly predict the subsequent direction; a typical example is Chen Jian, who provided a clear perspective: when upstream big players do not receive sufficient benefits, leading downstream small players in protecting their rights usually does not end well. @jason_chen998

(2) The Second Stage: Attacking the insider information of BTCFi.

Then, someone 'discovered' that 1800 BTC had been sitting in a big holder's wallet without participating in staking, and could be counted as TVL simply through signatures, leading to a fierce public backlash against various dark secrets of BTCFi.

First ask if it is, then ask why.

This is a typical case of misinformation; when various platforms calculate TVL, they only account for the amount of funds in on-chain addresses, and there is no such thing as false TVL calculated multiple times through signatures.

This is also why I wrote a second tweet to refute this claim: from a technical principle perspective, UTXO cannot be approved for multiple uses; pre-signing is not a way to prove asset ownership, but merely proves address ownership through message signing.

Moreover, project parties generally make the staking addresses public; therefore, TVL data mainly focuses on these addresses. Project parties collaborate with some big holders to invest funds to inflate their own TVL, such as using MPC wallets for multi-signature management of funds with big holders.

More critically, 'false TVL' does not mean that data is fabricated, but rather that this TVL is dead capital that cannot truly create value; it is merely to attract subsequent retail investors' funds and create momentum for the project.

Real TVL is the liquidity that can truly be utilized, such as in lending projects or swap projects, where liquidity is high and users can better utilize the products; while false TVL is just lying there and not being used, such as in staking projects.

(3) The Third Stage: Mutual tearing between project parties in business wars.

What pushed public opinion to a climax was the involvement of the Nubit project founder Hans, who directly entered the fray to attack Solv.

Hans posts to criticize Solv for repeatedly using the same assets, claiming that BTC is not truly locked, and inciting users to withdraw their tokens.

However, the evidence provided by Hans is insufficient and has been refuted and clarified by Solv CEO Ryan in a post.

Nubit and Solv are both well-known projects in BTCFi, and their competitive relationship has escalated into overt mutual tearing.

If Hans had solid evidence and directly exposed the industry's dark secrets, he could be considered a heroic figure speaking out for justice. Unfortunately, Hans has not provided compelling evidence, and many of his judgments are quite subjective. One cannot help but doubt his motives, as it seems purely for the sake of smearing.

This has put them at a disadvantage, which has significantly impacted the professionalism and reliability of the Nubit project itself.

(4) The Fourth Stage: Binance continues to list coins, and rights defenders issue coins to harvest.

Finally, Binance continued to list coins as originally planned; the rights defenders realized that public opinion was not in their favor and saw no need to continue the fight, so they turned around and started issuing coins to harvest the last wave of traffic.

Everyone is shocked: the endgame of rights protection in the crypto circle actually turns out to be issuing coins?

It turns out that those who supported rights protection have fallen silent, feeling that their sympathy has been exploited.

The project party Nubit, which had been mutually attacking, fell silent; their direct involvement has become a joke.

The smeared Solv remained silent, and this public opinion crisis collapsed without a fight.

In the end, the winner turned out to be the rights defenders, who not only gained traffic but also maximized its use by directly monetizing through coin issuance.

3. The myriad of beings under the public opinion crisis.

In this public opinion war, we can see the differences between idealists and opportunists.

One is truly getting things done, pushing the industry forward while gaining commercial returns; the other is to lie back and collect money after enjoying the dividends of the times, claiming to protect their rights due to dissatisfaction with profit distribution, and ultimately monetizing traffic.

I have always felt that Teacher Meng Yan is one of the few people worth respecting. @myanTokenGeek

Many people may only know that Teacher Meng Yan is a co-founder of Solv, but he actually has many titles and achievements.

Before joining the blockchain industry, Teacher Meng Yan spent six years at CSDN, serving as vice president, and later worked at IBM, making him a technical expert in the Web2 industry.

Teacher Meng Yan began to engage with blockchain technology in 2015, becoming a well-known blockchain expert, evangelist, and consultant, especially renowned in the Chinese blockchain community.

Teacher Meng Yan was once recognized as one of the top ten blockchain educators in China. He proposed the translation of 'token' and promoted the study of tokenomics.

In 2020, he founded Solv Protocol, focusing on the development of financial NFTs and semi-fungible tokens (SFTs). He is also a co-author of the ERC-3525 standard, which is the first standard designed for semi-fungible tokens.

During this period, he also participated in several collaborative projects, such as the DESFT project in cooperation with the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Bank of Ghana.

Currently, Teacher Meng Yan is mainly responsible for the development of the ERC-3525 ecosystem at Solv Protocol.

Looking back at these past events, we can see that Teacher Meng Yan is highly respected for his professional knowledge, industry experience, and personal qualities.

Starting a business, incubating a project, creating a product is like raising a child; one naturally cannot tolerate unwarranted slander from others.

Teacher Meng Yan's performance in this public opinion crisis is noteworthy; after all, when others come to attack, one naturally has to fight back.

4. Where is our industry headed?

Previously, Teacher Meng Yan mentioned a viewpoint, which is worth sharing again:

Web3 is not just a technological revolution; it is also a social movement that follows the three stages of social movements: thesis (idealism stage), antithesis (alienation stage), and synthesis (integration with reality stage).

(1) The positive phase of Web3: Driven by idealists like Satoshi Nakamoto and Vitalik, they proposed a decentralized and transparent value system.

(2) Reaction Phase: Witnessing the alienation of this ideal—deviating from its own goals, heading towards its opposite, which is the current phenomenon of 'cutting韭菜'.

(3) Synthesis Stage: Emphasizes that Web3 needs to integrate with the real world, combining with tradition, using idealistic elements to transform and integrate the real world.

Historical experience tells us that the 'reaction' phase often requires a great cost and produces many problems and contradictions, while the 'synthesis' phase is usually an effective way to ultimately achieve goals.

Web3 is currently in a 'reaction' phase, characterized by the conflict of ideals and reality, as well as the concentrated outbreak of various problems and contradictions.

However, we cannot remain in this state for long, as it essentially uses the slogans of idealism to achieve improper goals for individuals or small groups. This practice not only deviates from the original intention of Web3 but also severely damages the healthy development of the entire ecosystem.

Ordinary users would rather have a centralized giant doing harm a thousand kilometers away than have a thousand small rogues causing harm within a kilometer.

Web3 aims to deconstruct centralized fiat currencies and traditional financial systems but has resulted in a series of scams that cut韭菜; the performance of most projects is far inferior to traditional finance.

Therefore, we must have a very clear understanding of these issues before we can move forward.

Finally, to conclude with a single sentence:

If good people do nothing, bad people will succeed.

This is also why I am writing this article, hoping to use my voice and words to record this chaotic event.