Running from Grand Conquest to Enso's Silence: Whose Future is Burying Berachain's Opacity Five days ago, I posted a post about Berachain's mouse den. For more details, please see here: https://(x.com)/Ice_Frog666666/status/1897235320275693622Berachain The ecological project team Enso quickly responded, saying, "This is a reward program based on RFA." However, it's okay not to respond, as responding only exposes more problems. According to official website information and insiders from Bear Chain: 1) According to Berachain's official documentation, up to 15% of the tokens in the RFA program can be allocated to the official vault, with the remaining 70% allocated to mainnet users and 15% allocated to testnet users. 2) The RFA plan not only requires users to actively claim, but also requires approval through multiple signatures. And this token is very strange. It was not claimed by the enso project team, but was directly deposited into the wallet with GENESIS blocks, distributed together with airdrops, and no detailed rules for token distribution were disclosed. So, I further asked: After the token was transferred to Binance, to which address did the withdrawal go? Is there any public disclosure? Does the project party have the right to decide on the distribution of tokens? Faced with these issues, Enso chose to remain silent and has not provided further explanation to this day. If they dare not even explain, does it mean they are lying? After all, if you dare to come forward and claim it, you should respond to doubts with reason and evidence. If it is only hastily claimed without discussing the details, then a reasonable suspicion is that this is not an RFA at all, but a blatant rat trap. The issue with the RFA plan is just the tip of the iceberg of Berachain's ecological opacity. When I was collecting data on the Berachain mouse warehouse on my chain, an insider revealed to me that the statement was highly consistent with my judgment: the Berachain ecosystem is extremely opaque and lacks effective regulatory measures. This makes the RFA program not only unable to truly promote ecological development, but may also become the trigger for its collapse. The biggest loophole of the RFA plan is that although tokens are allocated to ecological projects, there is a lack of follow-up supervision, which may result in tokens that should belong to users being embezzled by project parties. In fact, this situation has already occurred, Grand Conquest ran away directly, taking away all the bera tokens allocated by the community, which was once a benchmark project for the Berachain ecosystem GameFi. In addition, according to internal sources, Berachain's Swap was created by the GDX team that ran away from the arb chain at the time. Do you really dare to use the bear chain with a lot of RUG projects? And this event is not accidental, but the inevitable result of Berachain's lack of transparency. An opaque ecosystem will eventually collapse in a crisis of trust. The questioning of Berachain is not about killing anyone, after all, there are millions of "Berachain" in this market. It reflects a deeper problem that the lack of transparency among many project parties in this industry is eroding and destroying the trust foundation that the industry relies on for survival. If Berachain is unwilling to show sincerity, disclose the flow of funds thoroughly, and improve transparency, then don't blame the market for ultimately voting with their feet, sweeping it into the garbage heap of history, and nailing it to the pillar of shame. Either make transparency the cornerstone of the industry, or let the collapse of lies become the epitaph of the project@ berachain