This morning, I was thinking about the FOUR upgrade event. I’ve been involved throughout, and there are roughly three conflicting issues that need to be resolved. 1. Diversion http://2. BOT sniping 3. Exclusive 1M turning into 300K **1. Diversion** I think diversion is a community issue. From the SOL/ETH era, it’s been a tricky situation, evolving from uppercase/lowercase conflicts to the current internal competition between two mechanisms on the FOUR platform within BSC. The main cause of diversion on BSC is the exclusive ALPHA expectations. Possible solutions I’ve thought of: 1. Technically reduce duplicate CA names 2. Support OGs through mechanisms 3. Community voting to delist clone versions 4. Official statement not supporting diversion behavior **2. BOT** After last night’s update, BOTs were the most rampant. DEV hadn’t even created CA chips yet, and BOTs had already sniped and harvested. Basically, each CA was harvested for 2-3K. Referring to anti-BOT mechanisms from similar platforms, there are a few possible solutions: 1. Anti-sniping settings to kill BOTs at block 0 2. Set up a vsetking (ownership) mechanism to temporarily lock BOT funds, restricting high-frequency sniping **3.** When exclusives were at 1M, there was indeed some fairness. The reaction time was long enough, and wallets without private keys could join. Although third-party tools could bypass restrictions, it was still easier to control than the current BOT situation. If 1M is too high, we could consider resetting the parameters—300K, 500K, or 800K are all options. Another idea is to fully merge with FOUR, establish unified standards, and guide DEV to prioritize building on exclusives. @cz_binance @heyibinance @four_meme_ @BinanceWallet @BNBCHAINZH