The commission design of Binance, if we had copied the logic of OKX earlier, OKX might not have been able to achieve such a large scale. Before the revision of Binance commission, it was a one-year system, and after one year, KOLs could not receive the commission sharing from users. It was too exhausting, and OKX was more willing to share profits with KOLs. Therefore, OKX has established a channel for commission sharing. The core is how to ensure that KOLs can sustainably earn rebates at the lowest cost. Binance did not understand this before. What everyone wants is stable channel income. Do you know why Google is so bad? Because at the company level, AdSense and AdMob make fixed monthly payments. As long as there are users using the product and filling out the form, there is no need to worry about anything unexpected in life, and money can be printed steadily. Instead of having Binance bear the user's handling fee alone after the one-year commission ends. The recently circulated logic of changing ties, in my opinion, is a very bad one that will destroy the original ecology of KOLs, intensify competition among different families, and the people who are constantly changing are still those people, which is not very interesting. Fortunately, none of the families have done this foolish thing. Many things are business common sense. Why can't some small securities firms in the US stock market do it? Why has Changqiao been able to rise in recent years? Why does Tiger lack the motivation to become a loyal user of Futu? The logic is similar.