Looking at a DeFi protocol, I no longer just ask "what does it do," but am more concerned with a question—whether it is sufficiently transparent, auditable, reviewable, and capable of earning long-term trust.

This reflects a clear shift in the DeFi ecosystem.

In the past, whoever had more innovative mechanisms, faster gameplay, and higher yields won. But now, it's different—the competition has shifted to another dimension: who can withstand the scrutiny of audits.

**DeFi enters a new round of reshuffling, with the core standard shifting from "innovation" to "auditability"**

Early DeFi was like a market in exploration, where everyone focused on new mechanisms, new gameplay, and new yields. But as the ecosystem grew larger, participants became more rational, and real risks emerged, a more fundamental question surfaced:

Can others understand this system? Can they trace the flow of risks? If something goes wrong, can responsibility be assigned?

Many protocols have stumbled here. It's not necessarily that their code has vulnerabilities, but that the design itself is a black box—making it impossible to assess the true safety status. When the market enters a period of calm, this opacity instantly becomes a fatal flaw.

**Some protocols do things differently.**

What moved me most is that they didn't design the system to "rely on trust," but instead laid out the logic openly at the structural level—allowing anyone to see clearly.

A unified collateral framework means risk parameters are always consistent; layers like USDf mean every settlement and risk-bearing activity is traceable; yield planning is also handled within defined ranges.

This is not just hype, but a difference in system design philosophy.