Sure enough, the debate over whether USDe has truly depegged has turned into a meaningless game of taking sides: DeFi believers question CeFi's centralized risk control mechanisms as the original sin, while CeFi supporters are relieved that the crisis hasn’t spread to on-chain systems. Same stance as always: the real issue behind the depegging debate is figuring out how to hold someone accountable for this $19 billion liquidation event. Don’t let the narrative get derailed. We used to hope that competition between different camps would drive the market toward more mature development, giving retail investors more opportunities to participate and make money. But the divide between the DeFi and CeFi systems is far scarier than we imagined. The differences in technical approaches, the fragmentation of communities, and now even the distortion of cultural beliefs. In an ideal scenario, if a black swan event occurs, CeFi would absorb the first wave of impact through market makers and risk control, while DeFi, with its decentralized liquidity, would serve as a “retreat” channel when CeFi falters. Shouldn’t it be a double safety net? What’s the point of undermining each other—what are we trying to avoid? Honestly, after the shock of the 1011 black swan, it’s becoming clearer that the maturity of the crypto industry isn’t about how decentralized it is or how high prices can go. Transparency, fairness, and freedom are the fundamental principles. Unfortunately, the current debate over the “buffer” during downturns feels weak, and the black-box nature of platforms has turned everything into a mystery.