Official data "crashing" moment, many people began to think: what can we still trust?

This is no small matter. Analysts point out that such incidents can directly shake people's perception of "government data neutrality and credibility." The underlying issue points to a bigger problem—when those centralized institutions we once trusted 100% (government departments, mainstream media, authoritative organizations) experience "trust breaches" due to operational errors, political interference, or bureaucratic issues, society begins to seek new, more reliable information anchors.

History is quite interesting. Every time there's a trust crisis like this, it often spurs some kind of great transformation. Think about the 2008 financial crisis—it was on the ruins of the traditional financial system's complete collapse that blockchain technology was born and grew.

And now? We see the same logic replayed on a more subtle level. Take public chain projects like Max, for example—they represent this very trust migration: people are no longer passively accepting an institution saying "we've got this covered," but are starting to believe in a piece of verifiable, tamper-proof code logic—the trust in "the program that directs value flow" itself.

The public good sector is especially obvious. In the past, you could only look at annual reports; now, there are permanent, traceable records on the chain. Moving from "trusting people and institutions" to "trusting mathematics and open-source code"—this is a profound paradigm shift.

When old signals start to fail, have you ever thought about reallocating some trust into these systems driven by new rules?