Many people have misconceptions about decentralization. They think decentralization means "everyone can see, everyone can act," but the essence of finance has never been like that. What truly matters is not the level of participation, but whether the permission division is clear—who can do what must be thoroughly explained.

Imagine a real-world scenario: does a financial transfer require two approvals? Can the risk control department only look at data indicators without examining the specific transaction targets? Are audit permissions only decryptable under certain conditions? These are not cumbersome bureaucratic procedures but basic operational norms to minimize risk factors.

Traditional public blockchains often fall into a dilemma—publicly revealing all data for transparency, resulting in a permission system that degenerates into a binary "if you have the private key, you know everything; if not, you know nothing." Organizations see this logic and shake their heads: how can I fit my operational processes into this? How to protect data privacy?

This is precisely the direction some new blockchains are exploring. They treat privacy as a default boundary while reserving necessary channels for auditing and verification. Permission division then becomes an implementable rule, rather than relying on personal relationships and verbal promises.

For organizations, what does this mean? It means on-chain finance can finally operate like traditional finance: power can be decentralized, operations can leave traces, accounts can be accountable, but all without exposing all the underlying secrets to strangers. This is the true ticket for blockchain to win institutional-level applications.