Recently saw a shocking phishing case - a certain Wallet was robbed of 50 million USDT overnight. More heartbreaking is that the victim issued a 48-hour ultimatum to the Hacker on-chain, even offering a condition: as long as 98% is returned, the remaining 1 million will be given as a "white hat reward" directly. If not returned, a global investigation will be pursued.

The comments section is lively with discussions about whether the hacker will return the money and if law enforcement can catch up. But after watching the entire incident, a more painful question flashed through my mind: if an ordinary person loses 500,000, will anyone listen?

In plain terms, this exposes one of the harshest realities of the crypto world - the cost of security is too high. When whales lose money, there are on-chain monitoring teams and international law enforcement to support them. When small investors lose money, they often can only accept their misfortune, unable to sue or recover their debts. So we all have to walk on a tightrope every day, guarding against phishing sites, fake links, and private key leaks. Even so, we still feel anxious.

It is also because of this sense of insecurity that I began to rethink the way of asset management. Instead of passively defending, it is better to reduce risks from the source. At this point, I discovered that some stablecoins use an over-collateralization model which actually provides a different safety perspective - its value support is transparent and verifiable, visible on-chain for anyone to see. You don't have to worry about it being wiped out overnight due to an institution running away or a hacker invasion. This kind of security is built into the structure, rather than relying on a cautious defense.

More practically, the way to manage assets in this type of ecosystem is relatively straightforward. Staking for interest, participating in the ecosystem, and interactive verification, all operations are transparent and traceable. There is no need to walk a tightrope amidst various phishing risks, allowing for more focus on the strategy itself.