BSC approximate alliance chain MEV solution, I feel that the last four years of the cycle may have been wasted. I would like to take this opportunity to discuss it with everyone -The essence of MEV -Why does blockchain not distinguish between good and evil -Blockchain should solve problems organically Simply put, BSC's solution is for the company to require its subsidiaries to filter out certain "malicious" transactions, even if you can earn more from these transactions, you have to give up. If the premise of discussing this issue is that blockchain or consortium chains are no longer important, then BSC can completely eliminate MEV with an iron fist under the constraints of Binance. But if we look at it from the perspective of blockchain, this solution has no universality because it violates Blockchain is the underlying logic that operates autonomously driven by profit For example, Bitcoin miners maintain the network because it is profitable, and this profit driven approach essentially achieves a game relationship, balancing the risk of wrongdoing, rather than being based on the desire to "be a good person" or contribute to a great cause. The problem with MEV is the same, as this type of miner can extract value without distinguishing between "good faith transactions" and "malicious transactions", because for them, whoever pays more money, I should package the transaction for them. In official terms, MEV is inevitable and cannot be eliminated in its natural state. How to organically solve this problem? The original charm of blockchain lies in the fact that it does not judge good or evil on the chain, but only achieves balance through rule design, which is the way blockchain solves problems. For the MEV problem, a more mature solution on Ethereum is to introduce new roles to intervene, auction off the value of this part, and allocate the MEV value reasonably after sufficient competition, in order to achieve the effect of resisting MEV. If two people cannot share a cake, then add one person to achieve power balance. In this scheme, more beneficiaries are added, which is equivalent to creating more "job opportunities" and making the ecology more organic. In the long run, this structure is more beneficial. The centralized one size fits all approach, although most effective, basically abandons the resilience of "chain" self-regulation. In summary, I am not against centralization as it can be efficient in certain special situations, but we should fully understand the essence of things and the logic behind them.