#以太坊大户持仓变化 Counterattack Under Regulatory Storm: Why Did a Certain Project Dare to Hire Top Lawyers to Confront a National Investigation?

The crypto world has recently staged another interesting scene. A project targeted by multiple countries didn't choose to bow its head and be meek; instead, it took action by hiring Barry Pollack, a heavyweight in the legal circle.

You might be unfamiliar with this name, but as soon as you mention Assange and WikiLeaks, insiders know his significance. In the global shock event back then, Pollack managed to turn a seemingly hopeless situation—being wanted by multiple countries—into a settlement. This ability to transform "despair" into "a way out" is already top-tier in legal confrontation.

The current situation is quite interesting. The project team is no longer passively defending but has actually deployed a real "firewall." This is not just a legal dispute; it’s more like using the rules themselves to fight against the rules.

Pollack’s approach is quite clear: First, convert "political pressure" into "legal procedures," using the opponent’s familiar framework to dismantle them. Second, delay procedures or negotiate to buy the project some breathing room. Third, once successful, it sets a benchmark for the entire ecosystem—proving the value of professional legal protection.

$BTC $ETH $BNB These leading assets have reached today’s status, in part, because they have established a complete compliance and legal system. For projects that are "named" by regulators, the real way out often isn’t through technological breakthroughs but whether they can hire the right people and use the right strategies.

Frankly, this reflects a deeper change in the crypto industry: pure technological moat is no longer enough; legal resources are becoming a new scarce asset.

What do you think of this case? Can this kind of counterattack succeed?